mm 


38?  &&ne0  Keppiter 


COUNTER-CURRENTS. 

AMERICANS  AND  OTHERS. 

A  HAPPY  HALF-CENTURY  AND  OTHER 
ESSAYS. 

IN  OUR  CONVENT  DAYS. 

COMPROMISES. 

THE  FIRESIDE  SPHINX.    With  4  full-page 
and  17  text  Illustrations  by  Miss  E .  BONSALL. 

BOOKS  AND  MEN. 

POINTS  OF  VIEW 

ESSAYS  IN  IDLENESS. 

IN  THE  DOZY  HOURS,  AND  OTHER  PA 
PERS. 

ESSAYS   IN  MINIATURE. 

A    BOOK   OF    FAMOUS   VERSE.     Selected 
by  Agnes  Repplier.     In  Riverside  Library 
for  Young  People. 
THE  SAME.    Holiday  Edition. 

VARIA. 

HOUGHTON  MIFFLIN  COMPANY 
BOSTON  AND  NEW  YORK 


COUNTER-CURRENTS 


COUNTER-CURRENTS 


BY 


AGNES  REPPLIER,  Lrrr.D. 


BOSTON  AND  NEW  YORK 
HOUGHTON  MIFFLIN  COMPANY 

re&$  Cambridge 
1916 


COPYRIGHT,   1916,   BY  AGNES   REPPLIER 
ALL  RIGHTS   RESERVED 

Published  April  iqtb 


Note 

THESE  nine  essays,  in  their  original 
form,  were  published  in  the  Atlantic 
Monthly  during  the  past  three  years. 


333923 


Contents 

The  Cost  of  Modern  Sentiment  i 

Our  Loss  of  Nerve  33 

Christianity  and  War  63 

Women  and  War  98 

The  Repeal  of  Reticence  136 

Popular  Education  165 

The  Modest  Immigrant  197 

Waiting  233 

Americanism  260 


COUNTER-CURRENTS 

The  Cost  of  Modern 
Sentiment 

WE  are  rising  dizzily  and  fear 
lessly  on  the  crest  of  a  great 
wave  of  sentiment.  When  the 
wave  breaks,  we  may  find  ourselves  sub 
merged,  and  in  danger  of  drowning ;  but 
for  the  present  we  are  full  of  hope  and 
high  resolve.  Forty  years  ago  we  stood 
in  shallow  water,  and  mocked  at  the  mid- 
Victorian  sentiment,  then  ebbing  slowly 
with  the  tide.  We  have  nothing  now  in 
common  with  that  fine,  thin,  tenacious 
conception  of  life  and  its  responsibil 
ities.  We  do  not  prate  about  valour  for 
men,  and  domesticity  for  women.  A 
vague  humanity  is  our  theme.  We  do  not 
feel  the  fastidious  distaste  for  repulsive 


Counter-Currents 

details  which  made  our  grandparents 
culpably  negligent.  All  knowledge,  apart 
from  its  quality,  and  apart  from  our  re 
quirements,  now  seems  to  us  desirable. 
Taste  is  no  longer  a  controlling  force. 
We  do  not,  if  we  can  help  it,  look  "  that 
jade,  Duty,"  —  I  use  Sir  Walter  Scott's 
phrase,  and  he  knew  the  lady  in  question 
better  than  do  most  men,  —  squarely  in 
the  face ;  but  we  speak  well  of  her  be 
hind  her  back,  which  is  more  than  Sir 
Walter  did.  To  hear  us  talk,  one  would 
imagine  that  she  never  cost  a  pang. 

The  sentiment  of  to-day  is  social  and 
philanthropic.  It  has  no  affiliations  with 
art,  which  stands  aloof  from  it,  — a  new 
experience  for  the  world.  It  dominates 
periodical  literature,  minor  fiction,  and 
serious  verse;  but  it  has  so  far  given 
nothing  of  permanent  value  to  letters.  It 
is  in  high  favour  with  politicians,  and  is 
echoed  loudly  from  all  party  platforms. 
It  has  unduly  influenced  our  attitude  to 
ward  the  war  in  Europe,  and  toward  our 
2 


Cost  of  Modern  Sentiment 

defences  at  home.  It  is  a  force  to  be  reck 
oned  with,  and  to  be  controlled.  It  is 
capable  of  raising  us  to  a  better  and 
clearer  vision,  or  of  weakening  our  judg 
ment  and  shattering  our  common  sense. 
If  we  value  our  safety,  we  must  forever 
bear  in  mind  that  sentiment  is  subjec 
tive,  and  a  personal  thing.  However  ex 
alted  and  however  ardent,  it  cannot  be 
accepted  as  a  scale  for  justice,  or  as  a 
test  for  truth. 

The  issues  with  which  our  modern 
sentiment  chiefly  concerns  itself  are  the 
conditions  of  labour,  the  progress  of  wo 
men,  the  social  evil,  and  —  for  the  past 
two  years — the  overwhelming  question 
of  peace  and  war.  Sometimes  these  issues 
are  commingled.  Always  they  have  a 
bearing  upon  one  another.  There  is  also 
a  distinct  and  perilous  tendency  toward 
sentiment  in  matters  political  and  judi 
cial  ;  while  an  excess  of  emotionalism  is 
the  stumbling-block  of  those  noble  asso 
ciations  which  work  for  the  protection  of 
3 


Counter-Currents 

animals.  It  is  profoundly  discouraging 
to  read  in  the  accredited  organ  of  an 
American  humane  society  an  angry  pro 
test  against  Vilhjalmur  Stefansson's  be 
ing  permitted  the  use  of  Eskimo  dogs  on 
his  Arctic  explorations,  because,  forsooth, 
when  he  went  hungry,  the  dogs  went 
hungry  too,  and  because  their  feet  were 
hurt  by  the  ice.  The  writer  (a  woman) 
reminds  us  that  these  dogs  (like  all  other 
animals)  are  not  "free  agents" ;  and  she 
calls  upon  public  opinion  and  law  to  res 
cue  them.  We  hear  about  the  "  long  arm 
of  the  law,'*  but  it  would  be  a  giant  stretch 
that  could  reach  Stefansson  in  his  ice 
fields.  "Men  who  do  such  things,"  she 
affirms,  "are  not  heroes  of  the  highest 
type ;  and,  anyway,  when  you  have  found 
or  explored  the  North  Pole  or  the  South 
Pole,  what  can  you  do  with  it?" 

This  query  is  hard  to  answer.  Perhaps 

no  explorer  wants  to  do  anything  with 

the  Poles;  but  just  leave  them  as  they 

are,  uncolonized  for  the  present.  They 

4 


Cost  of  Modern  Sentiment 

are  not  the  only  things  in  the  world  which 
have  no  commercial  value.  But  if  Ste- 
fansson  is  not  a  hero,  of  what  stuff  are 
heroes  made,  and  where  shall  we  look  to 
find  one?  And  with  all  Europe  crying 
out  in  its  agony  of  pain,  is  it  worth  our 
while  to  worry  over  a  few  dogs,  who  are 
doing,  under  hard  conditions,  the  work 
they  are  fitted  to  do? 

The  same  journal  insults  the  intelli 
gence  of  its  readers  by  printing  a  wild 
rhapsody  of  Mrs.  Annie  Besant's,  appar 
ently  under  the  illusion  that  it  can  be  ac 
cepted  as  an  argument  for  vegetarianism, 
I  venture  to  quote  one  particularly  mad 
paragraph  as  an  illustration  of  the  un- 
plumbed  depths  to  which  emotional  hu- 
manitarianism  can  descend :  — 

"The  killing  of  animals  in  order  to 
devour  their  flesh  is  so  obviously  an  out 
rage  on  all  humane  feelings,  that  one  is 
almost  ashamed  to  mention  it  in  a  paper 
that  is  regarding  man  as  a  director  of 
evolution.  If  any  one  who  eats  flesh  could 
5 


Counter-Currents 

be  taken  to  the  shambles,  to  watch  the 
agonized  struggles  of  the  terrified  victims 
as  they  are  dragged  to  the  spot  where 
knife  or  mallet  slays  them ;  if  he  could 
be  made  to  stand  with  the  odours  of  the 
blood  reeking  in  his  nostrils ;  if  there  his 
astral  vision  could  be  opened  so  that  he 
might  see  the  filthy  creatures  that  flock 
round  to  feast  on  the  loathsome  exhala 
tions,  and  see  also  the  fear  and  horror  of 
the  slaughtered  beasts  as  they  arrive  in 
the  astral  world,  and  send  back  thence 
currents  of  dread  and  hatred  that  flow  be 
tween  men  and  animals  in  constantly  re- 
fed  streams ;  if  a  man  could  pass  through 
these  experiences,  he  would  be  cured  of 
meat-eating  forever." 

Now,  when  one  has  belonged  for  many 
years  to  the  society  which  printed  this 
precious  paragraph,  when  one  has  be 
lieved  all  one's  life  that  to  be  sentient  is 
to  possess  rights,  and  that,  not  kindness 
only,  but  justice  to  the  brute  creation  is 
an  essential  element  of  decent  living,  it 
6 


Cost  of  Modern  Sentiment 

is  hard  to  be  confronted  with  unutterable 
nonsense  about  astral  currents  and  astral 
visions.  It  is  harder  still  to  be  held  indi 
rectly  responsible  for  the  publication  of 
such  nonsense,  and  to  entertain  for  the 
thousandth  time  the  weary  conviction 
that  common  sense  is  not  a  determining 
factor  in  humanity. 

Mr.  Chesterton,  upon  whom  the  de 
light  of  startling  his  readers  never  seems 
to  pall,  has  declared  that  men  are  more 
sentimental  than  women,  "whose  only 
fault  is  their  excessive  sense."  Also  that 
the  apparent  absorption  of  the  modern 
world  in  social  service  is  not  the  compre 
hensive  thing  it  seems.  The  general  pub 
lic  still  remains  indifferent.  This  may  or 
may  not  be  true.  It  is  as  hard  for  Mr. 
Chesterton  as  for  the  rest  of  us  to  know 
much  about  that  remnant  of  the  public 
which  is  not  writing,  or  lecturing,  or  col 
lecting  data,  or  collecting  funds,  or  work 
ing  for  clubs  and  societies.  But  no  one 
can  say  that  the  social  reformer  is  the 
7 


Counter-Currents 

slighted  creature  that  he  was  a  half-cen 
tury  ago.  He  meets  with  the  most  dis 
tinguished  consideration,  and  he  is  al 
ways  accorded  the  first  hearing  in  print 
and  on  the  platform.  He  commands  our 
respect  when  he  deals  soberly  with  sober 
facts  in  sober  language,  when  his  conclu 
sions  are  just,  his  statements  irrefutable. 
He  is  less  praiseworthy  when  he  flies  to 
fiction,  an  agreeable  but  unconvincing 
medium ;  or  to  verse,  which,  as  the  the 
ologian  said  of  "  Paradise  Lost/'  "  proves 
nothing."  It  is  very  good  verse  some 
times,  and  its  grace  of  sentiment,  its  note 
of  appeal,  find  an  easy  echo  in  the  read 
er's  heart. 

A  little  poem  called  "  The  Factories," 
published  in  "McClure's  Magazine"  for 
September,  1912,  gives  an  almost  perfect 
example  of  the  modern  point  of  view,  of 
the  emotional  treatment  of  an  economic 
question,  and  of  the  mental  confusion 
which  arises  from  the  substitution  of 
sympathy  for  exactness. 
8 


Cost  of  Modern  Sentiment 

"  I  have  shut  my  little  sister  in  from  life  and  light 
(For  a  rose,  for  a  ribbon,  for  a  wreath  across  my 

hair), 

I  have  made  her  restless  feet  still  until  the  night, 
Locked  from  sweets  of  summer,  and  from  wild 

spring  air: 
I  who  ranged  the  meadow-lands,  free  from  sun  to 

sun, 
Free  to  sing,  and  pull  the  buds,  and  watch  the 

far  wings  fly, 
I  have  bound  my  sister  till  her  playing-time  is 

done,  — 
Oh,  my  little  sister,  was  it  I?  —  was  it  I? 

"  I  have  robbed  my  sister  of  her  day  of  maiden 
hood 
(For  a  robe,  for  a  feather,  for  a  trinket's  restless 

spark), 
Shut  from  Love  till  dusk  shall  fall,  how  shall  she 

know  good, 

How  shall  she  pass  scatheless  through  the  sin- 
lit  dark? 

I  who  could  be  innocent,  I  who  could  be  gay, 
I  who  could  have  love  and  mirth  before  the 

light  went  by, 

I  have  put  my  sister  in  her  mating- time  away,  — 
Sister,  my  young  sister,  was  it  I?  —  was  it  I? 

"I  have  robbed  my  sister  of  the  lips  against  her 
breast 

9 


Counter-Currents 

(For  a  coin,  for  the  weaving  of  my  children's 

lace  and  lawn), 

Feet  that  pace  beside  the  loom,  hands  that  can 
not  rest: 
How  can  she  know  motherhood,  whose  strength 

is  gone? 
I  who  took  no  heed  of  her,  starved  and  labor 

worn, 

I  against  whose  placid  heart  my  sleepy  gold- 
heads  lie, 

Round  my  path  they  cry  to  me,  little  souls  un 
born,  — 
God  of  Life  —  Creator!    It  was  I!    It  was  I." 

Now  if  by  "  I "  is  meant  the  average 
woman  who  wears  the  "  robe,"  the  "  rib 
bon,"  the  "  feather,"  and  possibly  — 
though  rarely  —  the  "  wreath  across  my 
hair/'  "  I "  must  protest  distinctly  against 
assuming  a  guilt  which  is  none  of  mine. 
I  have  not  shut  my  little  sister  in  a  fac 
tory,  any  more  than  I  have  ranged  the 
meadow-lands,  "  free  from  sun  to  sun." 
What  I  probably  am  doing  is  trying  to 
persuade  my  sister  to  cook  my  dinner, 
and  sweep  my  house,  and  help  me  to 
take  care  of  my  "gold-heads,"  who  are 
10 


Cost  of  Modern  Sentiment 

not  always  so  sleepy  as  I  could  desire. 
If  my  sister  declines  to  do  this  at  a  wage 
equal  to  her  factory  earnings,  and  with 
board  and  lodging  included,  she  is  well 
within  her  rights,  and  I  have  no  busi 
ness,  as  is  sometimes  my  habit,  weakly  to 
complain  of  her  decision.  If  I  made  my 
household  arrangements  acceptable  to 
her,  she  would  come.  As  this  is  difficult 
or  distasteful  to  me,  she  goes  to  a  fac 
tory  instead.  The  right  of  every  man 
and  woman  to  do  the  work  he  or  she 
chooses  to  do,  and  can  do,  at  what 
wages,  and  under  what  conditions  he  or 
she  can  command,  is  the  fruit  of  centu 
ries  of  struggle.  It  is  now  so  well  estab 
lished  that  only  the  trade  unions  venture 
to  deny  it. 

In  that  vivid  and  sad  study  of  New 
York  factory  life,  published  some  years 
ago  by  the  Century  Company,  under  the 
title  of  "The  Long  Day,"  a  girl  who  is 
out  of  work,  and  who  has  lost  her  few 
possessions  in  a  lodging-house  fire,  seeks 
n 


Counter-Currents 

counsel  of  a  wealthy  stranger  who  has 
befriended  her. 

"The  lady  looked  at  me  a  moment 
out  of  fine,  clear  eyes. 

"  *  You  would  not  go  into  service,  I 
suppose  ? '  she  asked  slowly. 

"  I  had  never  thought  of  such  an  al 
ternative  before,  but  I  met  it  without  a 
moment's  hesitation.  '  No,  I  would  not 
care  to  go  into  service/  I  replied ;  and, 
as  I  did  so,  the  lady's  face  showed  min 
gled  disappointment  and  disgust. 

"  *  That  is  too  bad,'  she  answered,  '  for, 
in  that  case,  I'm  afraid  I  can  do  nothing 
for  you.'  And  she  went  out  of  the  room, 
leaving  me,  I  must  confess,  not  sorry 
for  having  thus  bluntly  decided  against 
wearing  the  definite  badge  of  servitude." 

Here  at  least  is  a  refreshingly  plain 
statement  of  facts.  The  girl  in  question 
bore  the  servitude  imposed  upon  her  by 
the  foremen  of  half  a  dozen  factories; 
she  slept  for  many  months  in  quarters 
which  no  domestic  servant  would  con- 

12 


Cost  of  Modern  Sentiment 

sent  to  occupy ;  she  ate  food  which  no 
servant  would  be  asked  to  eat ;  she  as 
sociated  with  young  women  whom  no 
servant  would  accept  as  equals  and  com 
panions.  But,  as  she  had  voluntarily  re 
linquished  comfort,  protection,  and  the 
grace  of  human  relations  between  em 
ployer  and  employed,  she  accepted  her 
chosen  conditions,  and  tried  successfully 
to  better  them  along  her  chosen  lines. 
The  reader  is  made  to  understand  that 
it  was  as  unreasonable  for  the  benevolent 
lady  —  who  had  visions  of  a  trim  and 
white-capped  parlor-maid  dancing  be 
fore  her  eyes — to  show  "  disappointment 
and  disgust "  because  her  overtures  were 
rejected,  as  it  would  have  been  to  charge 
the  same  lady  with  robbing  the  girl  of 
her  "  day  of  maidenhood,"  and  her  "  lit 
tle  souls  unborn,"  by  shutting  her  up  in 
a  factory.  If  we  will  blow  our  minds  clear 
of  generous  illusions,  we  shall  under 
stand  that  an  emotional  verdict  has  no  va 
lidity  when  offered  as  a  criterion  of  facts. 
13 


Counter-Currents 

The  excess  of  sentiment,  which  is  mis 
leading  in  philanthropy  and  economics, 
grows  acutely  dangerous  when  it  inter 
feres  with  legislation,  or  with  the  ordi 
nary  rulings  of  morality.  The  substitution 
of  a  sentimental  principle  of  authority  for 
the  impersonal  processes  of  law  confuses 
our  understanding,  and  undermines  our 
sense  of  justice.  It  is  a  painful  truth  that 
most  laws  have  had  their  origin  in  a  pro 
found  mistrust  of  human  nature  (even 
Mr.  Olney  admits  that  the  Constitution, 
although  framed  in  the  interests  of  free 
dom,  is  not  strictly  altruistic) ;  but  the 
time  is  hardly  ripe  for  brushing  aside 
this  ungenerous  mistrust,  and  establish 
ing  the  social  order  on  a  basis  of  pure 
enthusiasm.  The  reformers  who  light- 
heartedly  announce  that  people  are 
"  tired  of  the  old  Constitution  anyway," 
voice  the  buoyant  creed  of  ignorance. 
I  once  heard  a  popular  lecturer  say  of  a 
popular  idol  that  he  "  preferred  making 
precedents  to  following  them,"  and  the 


Cost  of  Modern  Sentiment 

remark  evoked  a  storm  of  applause.  It 
was  plain  that  the  audience  considered 
following  a  precedent  to  be  a  timorous 
and  unworthy  thing  for  a  strong  man  to 
do ;  and  it  was  equally  plain  that  nobody 
had  given  the  matter  the  benefit  of  a 
serious  thought.  Believers  in  political 
faith-healing  enjoy  a  supreme  immunity 
from  doubt. 

This  growing  contempt  for  paltry  but 
not  unuseful  restrictions,  this  excess  of 
sentiment,  combined  with  paucity  of 
humour  and  a  melodramatic  attitude  to 
ward  crime,  has  had  some  discouraging 
results.  It  is  ill  putting  the  strong  man, 
or  the  avenging  angel,  or  the  sinned- 
against  woman  above  the  law,  which  is 
a  sacred  trust  for  the  preservation  of  life 
and  liberty.  It  is  ill  so  to  soften  our  hearts 
with  a  psychological  interest  in  the  law 
breaker  that  no  criminal  is  safe  from 
popularity.  The  "  Nation  "  performed  a 
well-timed  duty  when  it  commented 
grimly  on  the  message  sent  to  the  public 
15 


Counter-Currents 

by  a  murderer,  and  a  singularly  cold 
blooded  murderer,  through  the  minister 
who  attended  him  on  the  scaffold  :  "  Mr. 
Beattie  desired  to  thank  his  many  friends 
for  kind  letters  and  expressions  of  inter 
est,  and  the  public  for  whatever  sympa 
thy  was  felt  or  expressed." 

It  sounds  like  a  cabinet  minister  who 
has  lost  an  honoured  and  beloved  wife ; 
not  like  an  assassin  who  has  lured  his 
wife  to  a  lonely  spot,  and  there  pitilessly 
killed  her.  One  fails  to  see  why  "  kind 
letters"  and  " expressions  of  interest" 
should  have  poured  in  upon  this  male 
factor,  just  as  one  fails  to  see  why  a  young 
woman  who  shot  her  lover  a  few  months 
later  in  Columbus,  Ohio,  should  have  re 
ceived  an  ovation  in  the  court-room.  It 
was  not  even  her  first  lover  (it  seldom 
is) ;  but  when  a  gallant  jury  had  acquit 
ted  her  of  all  blame  in  the  trifling  matter 
of  manslaughter,  "the  crowd  shouted  its 
approval " ;  "  scores  of  women  rushed  up 
to  her,  and  insisted  upon  kissing  her"  ; 
16 


Cost  of  Modern  Sentiment 

and  an  intrepid  suitor,  stimulated  by  cir 
cumstances  which  might  have  daunted 
a  less  mettlesome  man,  announced  his 
intention  of  marrying  the  heroine  on  the 
spot. 

In  New  York  a  woman  murdered  her 
lover  because  he  refused  his  aid — a 
dastardly  refusal  —  when  her  husband 
had  cast  her  off.  She  was  not  only  ac 
quitted  by  a  jury,  —  which  was  to  be  ex 
pected  ;  but  the  husband,  pleased  with 
the  turn  affairs  had  taken,  restored  her 
to  his  home  and  his  affections ;  and  a 
sympathetic  newspaper  offered  this  ex 
planation  to  a  highly  gratified  public : 
"  They  are  Sicilians,  and  in  Sicily  a  wo 
man  may  retrieve  her  own  honour  and 
avenge  her  husband's,  only  by  doing  as 
this  woman  had  done." 

Perhaps.  But  New  York  is  not  Sicily, 
our  civilization  is  not  Sicilian  civilization, 
and  our  courts  of  law  are  not  modelled 
on  a  Sicilian  vendetta.  The  reporter  de 
scribed  with  all  the  eloquence  of  his  craft 
17 


Counter-Currents 

the  young  wife  reconciled  and  joyous  in 
her  husband's  arms,  laughing  and  sing 
ing  to  her  baby,  happier  than  she  had 
been  at  any  time  since  her  honeymoon. 
A  pretty  picture,  if  the  shadow  of  a  mur 
dered  man  did  not  intrude  upon  it. 

Our  revolt  from  the  old  callous  cruelty 
— the  heart-sickening  cruelty  of  the  eight 
eenth  century — has  made  us  tender  to 
criminals,  and  strangely  lenient  to  their 
derelictions.  It  inspires  genial  visitors  at 
Sing  Sing  to  write  about  the  "  fine  type" 
of  men,  sentenced  for  the  foulest  of  crimes. 
It  fills  us  all  with  concern  lest  detention 
prove  irksome  to  the  detained,  lest  base 
ball  and  well-appointed  vaudeville  should 
not  sufficiently  beguile  the  tedium  of 
their  leisure  hours. 

11  Imprisonment  alone  is  not 
A  thing  of  which  we  would  complain, 

And  ill-conwenience  is  our  lot, 

But  do  not  give  the  convick  pain." 

Sentiment  has  been  defined  as  a  revolt 
from  the  despotism  of  facts.  It  is  often  a 
18 


Cost  of  Modern  Sentiment 

revolt  from  authority,  which,  to  the  sen 
timentalist,  seems  forever  despotic ;  and 
this  revolt,  or  rather  this  easy  disregard 
of  authority,  is  fatal  to  the  noblest  efforts  of 
the  humanitarian.  The  women  of  wealth 
and  position  who  from  time  to  time  fling 
themselves  with  ardour  into  the  cause  of 
striking  shirt-waist-makers  and  garment- 
makers  are  always  well  intentioned,  but 
not  always  well  advised.  In  so  far  as  they 
uphold  the  strikers  in  what  are  often  just 
and  reasonable  demands,  they  do  good 
work ;  and  the  substantial  aid  they  give 
is  sweetened  by  the  spirit  in  which  it  is 
given,  —  the  sense  of  fellow  feeling  with 
their  kind.  But  there  is  no  doubt  that  one 
of  the  lessons  taught  at  such  times  to  our 
foreign-born  population  is  that  the  laws 
of  our  country  may  be  disregarded  with 
impunity.  The  picketers  who  attack  the 
"scab"  workers,  and  are  arrested  for 
disorderly  conduct,  are  swiftly  released, 
to  become  the  heroines  of  the  hour.  I 
once  remonstrated  with  a  friend  who  had 
19 


Counter-Currents 

given  bail  for  a  dozen  of  these  young 
lawbreakers,  and  she  answered  reproach 
fully:  "But  they  are  so  ignorant  and 
helpless.  There  were  two  poor  bewildered 
girls  in  court  yesterday  who  did  not  know 
enough  English  to  understand  the  charge 
made  against  them.  You  could  not  con 
ceive  of  anything  more  pathetic." 

I  said  that  a  young  woman  who  bowled 
over  another  young  woman  into  the  gut 
ter  understood  perfectly  the  charge  made 
against  her,  whether  she  spoke  English 
or  not.  One  does  not  have  to  study  French 
or  Spanish  to  know  that  one  may  not 
knock  down  a  Frenchman  or  a  Spaniard. 
No  civilized  country  permits  this  robust 
line  of  argument.  But  reason  is  power 
less  when  sentiment  takes  the  helm.  It 
would  be  as  easy  to  argue  with  a  con 
flagration  as  with  unbalanced  zeal.  The 
vision  of  a  good  cause  debauched  by  in 
temperance  is  familiar  to  all  students  of 
sociology ;  but  it  is  no  less  melancholy  for 
being  both  recognizable  and  ridiculous. 
20 


Cost  of  Modern  Sentiment 

A  moderate  knowledge  of  history  — 
which,  though  discouraging,  is  also  en 
lightening  —  might  prove  serviceable  to 
all  the  enthusiasts  who  are  engaged  in 
making  over  the  world.  Many  of  them 
(in  this  country,  at  least)  talk  and  write 
as  if  nothing  in  particular  had  happened 
between  the  Deluge  and  the  Civil  War. 
That  they  sometimes  know  as  little  of 
the  Civil  War  as  of  the  Deluge  is  proven 
by  the  lament  of  an  ardent  and  oratorical 
pacifist  that  this  great  struggle  should  be 
spoken  of  in  school  histories  as  a  war  for 
the  preservation  of  the  Union,  instead  of 
a  war  for  the  abolishment  of  slavery.  A 
lady  lecturer,  very  prominent  in  social 
work,  has  made  the  gratifying  announce 
ment  that  "the  greatest  discovery  of  the 
nineteenth  century  is  woman's  discovery 
of  herself.  It  is  only  within  the  last  fifty 
years  that  it  has  come  to  be  realized  that 
a  woman  is  human,  and  has  a  right  to 
think  and  act  for  herself." 

Now,  after  all,  the  past  cannot  be  a 

21 


Counter-Currents 

closed  page,  even  to  one  so  exclusively 
concerned  with  the  present.  A  little  less 
talking,  a  little  more  reading,  and  such 
baseless  generalizations  would  be  im 
possible,  even  on  that  stronghold  of  igno 
rance,  the  platform.  If  women  failed  to 
discover  themselves  a  hundred,  or  five 
hundred  years  ago,  it  was  because  they 
had  never  been  lost ;  it  was  because  their 
important  activities  left  them  no  leisure 
for  self-contemplation.  Yet  Miss  Jane 
Addams,  who  has  toiled  so  long  and  so 
nobly  for  the  bettering  of  social  con 
ditions,  and  whose  work  lends  weight  to 
her  words,  displays  in  "A  New  Con 
science  and  an  Ancient  Evil"  the  same 
placid  indifference  to  all  that  history  has 
to  tell.  What  can  we  say  or  think  when 
confronted  by  such  an  astounding  pas 
sage  as  this? 

"Formerly  all  that  the   best  woman 
possessed  was  a  negative  chastity,  which 
had  been  carefully  guarded  by  her  par 
ents  and  duennas.   The  chastity  of  the 
22 


Cost  of  Modern  Sentiment 

modern  woman  of  self-directed  activity 
and  of  a  varied  circle  of  interests,  which 
give  her  an  acquaintance  with  many  men 
as  well  as  women,  has  therefore  a  new 
value  and  importance  in  the  establish 
ment  of  social  standards." 

"Negative  chastity!"  "Parents  and 
duennas !"  Was  there  ever  such  a  maiden 
outlook  upon  life  !  It  was  the  chastity  of 
the  married  woman  upon  which  rested 
the  security  of  the  civilized  world ;  — 
that  chastity  which  all  men  prized,  and 
most  men  assailed,  which  was  preserved 
in  the  midst  of  temptations  unknown  in 
our  decorous  age,  and  held  inviolate  by 
women  whose  "  acquaintance  with  many 
men "  was  at  least  as  intimate  and  po 
tent  as  anything  experienced  to-day. 
Committees  and  congresses  are  not  the 
only  meeting-grounds  for  the  sexes. 
"  Remember,"  says  M.  Taine,  writing  of 
a  time  which  was  not  so  long  ago  that 
it  need  be  forgotten,  "remember  that 
during  all  these  years  women  were  par- 
23 


Counter-Currents 

amount.  They  set  the  social  tone,  led  so 
ciety,  and  thereby  guided  public  opinion. 
When  they  appeared  in  the  vanguard  of 
political  progress,  we  may  be  sure  that 
the  men  were  following." 

We  might  be  sure  of  the  same  thing 
to-day,  were  it  not  for  the  tendency  of 
the  modern  woman  to  sever  her  rights 
and  wrongs  from  the  rights  and  wrongs 
of  men ;  thereby  resembling  the  dispu 
tant  who,  being  content  to  receive  half 
the  severed  baby,  was  adjudged  by  the 
wise  Solomon  to  be  unworthy  of  any 
baby  at  all.  Half  a  baby  is  every  whit  as 
valuable  as  the  half-measure  of  reform 
which  fails  to  take  into  impartial  con 
sideration  the  inseparable  claims  of  men 
and  women.  Even  in  that  most  vital  of 
all  reforms,  the  crusade  against  social 
evils,  the  welfare  of  both  sexes  unifies  the 
subject.  Here  again  we  are  swayed  by 
our  anger  at  the  indifference  of  an  earlier 
generation,  at  the  hard  and  healthy  atti 
tude  of  men  like  Huxley,  who  had  not 
24 


Cost  of  Modern  Sentiment 

imagination  enough  to  identify  the  possi 
ble  saint  with  the  certain  sinner,  and  who 
habitually  confined  their  labours  to  fields 
which  promised  sure  results.  "In  my 
judgment,"  wrote  Huxley,  "a domestic 
servant,  who  is  perhaps  giving  half  her 
wages  to  support  her  old  parents,  is  more 
worthy  of  help  than  half  a  dozen  Magda- 
lens." 

If  we  are  forced  to  choose  between 
them,  —  yes.  But  our  esteem  for  the  serv 
ant's  self-respecting  life,  with  its  decent 
restraints  and  its  purely  normal  activi 
ties,  need  not  necessarily  harden  our 
hearts  against  the  women  whom  Mr. 
Huxley  called  "  Magdalens,"  nor  against 
those  whom  we  luridly  designate  as 
"  white  slaves."  No  work  under  Heaven 
is  more  imperative  than  the  rescue  of 
young  and  innocent  girls;  no  crime  is 
more  dastardly  than  the  sale  of  their 
youth  and  innocence;  no  charity  is 
greater  than  that  which  lifts  the  sinner 
from  her  sin.  But  the  fact  that  we  habit- 
25 


Counter-Currents 

ually  apply  the  term  "  white  slave "  to 
the  wilful  prostitute  as  well  as  to  the  en 
trapped  child  shows  that  a  powerful  and 
popular  sentiment  is  absolved  from  the 
shackles  of  accuracy.  Also  that  this  ab 
solution  confuses  the  minds  of  men.  The 
sentimentalist  pities  the  prostitute  as  a 
victim;  the  sociologist  abhors  her  as  a 
menace.  The  sentimentalist  conceives 
that  men  prey,  and  women  are  preyed 
upon ;  the  sociologist,  aware  that  evil 
men  and  women  prey  upon  one  another 
ceaselessly  and  ravenously,  has  no  meas 
ure  of  mercy  for  sin.  The  sentimentalist 
clings  tenaciously  to  the  association  of 
youth  with  innocence ;  the  sociologist 
knows  that  even  the  age-limit  which  the 
law  fixes  as  a  boundary-line  of  innocence 
has  no  corresponding  restriction  in  fact. 
It  is  inconceivable  that  so  many  books 
and  pamphlets  dealing  with  this  subject 
—  books  and  pamphlets  now  to  be  found 
on  every  library  shelf,  and  in  the  hands 
of  young  and  old  —  should  dare  to  ignore 
26 


Cost  of  Modern  Sentiment 

the  balance  of  depravity,  the  swaying  of 
the  pendulum  of  vice. 

A  new  and  painful  instance  of  the  cost 
of  modern  sentiment  is  afforded  by  the 
statement  of  Miss  Addams  and  other  pa 
cifists  that  middle-aged  men  are  in  fa 
vour  of  strengthened  defences,  and  that 
young  men  oppose  them,  as  savouring  of 
militarism ;  that  middle-aged  men  cling 
to  the  belief  that  war  may  be  just  and 
righteous,  and  that  young  men  reject 
it,  as  unreservedly  and  inevitably  evil. 
I  am  loath  to  accept  this  statement,  as  I 
am  loath  to  accept  all  unpleasant  state 
ments  ;  but  if  it  be — as  I  presume  it  is — 
based  upon  data,  or  upon  careful  obser 
vation,  it  fits  closely  with  my  argument. 
The  men  under  thirty  are  the  men  who 
have  done  their  thinking  in  an  era  of  un 
diluted  sentiment.  The  men  over  forty 
were  trained  in  a  simpler,  sterner  creed. 
The  call  to  duty  embraced  for  them  the 
call  to  arms. 

"  A  country 's  a  thing  men  should  die  for  at  need." 
27 


Counter-Currents 

Some  of  them  remember  the  days  when 
Americans  died  for  their  country,  and  it 
is  a  recollection  good  for  the  soul.  Again, 
the  men  over  forty  were  taught  by  men  ; 
the  men  under  thirty  were  taught  by 
women ;  and  the  most  dangerous  econ 
omy  practised  by  our  extravagant  Re 
public  is  the  eliminating  of  the  male 
teacher  from  our  public  schools.  It  is  no 
insult  to  femininity  to  say  that  the  femi- 
nization  of  boys  is  not  a  desirable  devel 
opment. 

It  was  thought  and  said  a  few  years 
ago  that  the  substitution  of  organized 
charities  for  the  somewhat  haphazard 
benevolence  of  our  youth  would  exclude 
sentiment,  just  as  it  excluded  human  and 
personal  relations  with  the  poor.  It  was 
thought  and  said  that  the  steady  advance 
of  women  in  commercial  and  civic  life 
would  correct  the  sentimental  bias  which 
only  Mr.  Chesterton  has  failed  to  observe 
in  the  sex.  No  one  who  reads  books  and 
newspapers,  or  listens  to  speeches,  or  in- 
28 


Cost  of  Modern  Sentiment 

dulges  in  the  pleasures  of  conversation 
can  any  longer  cherish  these  illusions. 
No  one  can  fail  to  see  that  sentiment  is 
the  motor  power  which  drives  us  to  in 
temperate  words  and  actions ;  which 
weakens  our  judgment,  and  destroys 
our  sense  of  proportion.  The  current 
phraseology,  the  current  criticisms,  the 
current  enthusiasms  of  the  day,  all  be 
tray  an  excess  of  emotionalism.  I  pick  up 
a  table  of  statistics,  furnishing  economic 
data,  and  this  is  what  I  read  :  "  Case  3. 
Two  children  under  five.  Mother  shortly 
expecting  the  supreme  trial  of  woman 
hood."  That  is  the  way  to  write  stories, 
and,  possibly,  sermons ;  but  it  is  not  the 
way  to  write  reports.  I  pick  up  a  news 
paper,  and  learn  that  an  Englishman 
visiting  the  United  States  has  made  the 
interesting  announcement  that  he  is  a 
reincarnation  of  one  of  the  Pharaohs,  and 
that  an  attentive  and  credulous  band  of 
disciples  are  gathering  wisdom  from  his 
lips.  I  pick  up  a  very  serious  and  very 
29 


Counter-Currents 

well-written  book  on  the  Bronte  sisters, 
and  am  told  that  if  I  would  "touch  the 
very  heart  of  the  mystery  that  was 
Charlotte  Bronte "  (I  had  never  been 
aware  that  there  was  anything  mysteri 
ous  about  this  famous  lady),  I  will  find 
it — save  the  mark  ! — in  her  passionate 
love  for  children. 

"We  are  face  to  face  here,  not  with  a 
want,  but  with  an  abyss,  depth  beyond 
depth  of  tenderness,  and  longing,  and 
frustration  ;  with  a  passion  that  found  no 
clear  voice  in  her  works  because  it  was 
one  with  the  elemental  nature  in  her,  un 
defined,  unuttered,  unutterable ! " 

It  was  certainly  unuttered.  It  was  not 
even  hinted  at  in  Miss  Bronte's  novels, 
nor  in  her  voluminous  correspondence. 
Her  attitude  toward  children  —  so  far  as 
it  found  expression  —  was  the  arid  but 
pardonable  attitude  of  one  who  had  been 
their  reluctant  caretaker  and  teacher.  If, 
as  we  are  now  told,  "  there  were  mo 
ments  when  it  was  pain  for  Charlotte  to 
30 


Cost  of  Modern  Sentiment 

see  the  children  born  of  and  possessed 
by  other  women,"  there  were  certainly 
hours  —  so  much  she  makes  clear  to  us 
—  in  which  the  business  of  looking  after 
them  wearied  her  beyond  her  powers  of 
endurance.  It  is  true  that  Miss  Bronte 
said  a  few,  a  very  few  friendly  words 
about  these  little  people.  She  did  not, 
like  Swift,  propose  that  babies  should 
be  cooked  and  eaten.  But  this  temper 
ate  regard,  this  restricted  benevolence, 
gives  us  no  excuse  for  wallowing  in 
sentiment  at  her  expense. 

"  If  some  virtues  are  new,  all  vices  are 
old."  We  can  reckon  the  cost  of  misdi 
rected  emotions  by  the  price  which  the 
past  has  paid  for  them.  We  know  the 
full  significance  of  that  irresponsible 
sympathy  which  grows  hysterical  over 
animals  it  should  soberly  protect ;  which 
accuses  the  consumer  of  strange  cruelties 
to  the  producer;  which  condones  law- 
breaking  and  vindicates  the  lawbreaker ; 
which  admits  no  difference  between  at- 


Counter-Currents 

tack  and  resistance,  between  a  war  of 
aggression  and  a  war  of  defence ;  which 
confuses  moral  issues,  ignores  experience, 
and  insults  the  intelligence  of  mankind. 
The  reformer  whose  heart  is  in  the 
right  place,  but  whose  head  is  elsewhere, 
represents  a  waste  of  force ;  and  we  can 
not  afford  any  waste  in  the  conservation 
of  honour  and  goodness.  We  cannot 
afford  errors  of  judgment,  or  errors  of 
taste.  The  business  of  leading  lives  mor 
ally  worthy  of  men  is  neither  simple  nor 
easy.  And  there  are  moments  when,  with 
the  ageing  Fontenelle,  we  sigh  and  say, 
"  I  am  beginning  to  see  things  as  they 
are.  It  is  surely  time  for  me  to  die." 


Our  Loss  of  Nerve 

IF  any  lover  of  Hogarth  will  look  at 
the  series  of  pictures  which  tell  the 
story  of  the  Idle  and  the  Industrious 
Apprentice,  he  will  feel  that  while  the 
industrious  apprentice  fitted  admirably 
into  his  time  and  place,  the  idle  appren 
tice  had  the  misfortune  to  be  born  out  of 
date.  In  what  a  different  spirit  would  his 
tragic  tale  be  told  to-day,  and  what  dif 
ferent  emotions  it  would  awaken.  A  poor 
tired  boy,  who  ought  to  be  at  school  or 
at  play,  sleeping  for  very  exhaustion  at 
his  loom.  A  cruel  boss  daring  to  strike 
the  worn-out  lad.  No  better  playground 
given  him  in  the  scant  leisure  which 
Sunday  brings  than  a  loathsome  grave 
yard.  No  healthier  sport  provided  for 
him  than  gaming.  And,  in  the s  end,  a 
lack  of  living  wage  forcing  him  to  steal. 
Unhappy  apprentice,  to  have  lived  and 
33 


Counter-Currents 

sinned  nearly  two  centuries  too  soon  I 
And  as  if  this  were  not  a  fate  bitter 
enough  for  tears,  he  must  needs  have 
contrasted  with  him  at  every  step  an  in 
dustrious  companion,  whom  that  unen 
lightened  age  permitted  to  work  as  hard 
as  he  pleased,  even  for  the  benefit  of  a 
master,  and  to  build  up  his  own  fortunes 
on  the  foundation  of  his  own  worth.  Ho 
garth's  simple  conception  of  personal  re 
sponsibility  and  of  personal  equation  is 
as  obsolete  as  the  clumsy  looms  at  which 
his  apprentices  sit,  and  the  full-skirted 
coats  they  wear. 

Yet  the  softening  of  the  hard  old  rules, 
the  rigid  old  standards,  has  not  tended 
to  strengthen  the  fibre  of  our  race.  No 
body  supposes  that  the  industrious  ap 
prentice  had  an  enjoyable  boyhood.  As 
far  as  we  can  see,  going  to  church  was 
his  sole  recreation,  as  it  was  probably 
the  principal  recreation  of  his  master's 
daughter,  whose  hymn-book  he  shares, 
and  whom  he  duly  marries.  Her  home- 
34 


Our  Loss  of  Nerve 

life  doubtless  bore  a  strong  resemblance 
to  the  home-life  of  the  tumultuous  hero 
ine  of  "  Fanny's  First  Play,"  who  tells  us 
with  a  heaving  breast  that  she  never  knew 
what  a  glorious  thing  life  was  until  she 
had  knocked  out  a  policeman's  tooth. 
Hogarth's  young  lady  would  probably 
have  cared  little  for  this  form  of  exercise, 
even  had  the  London  policemen  of  1748 
been  the  chivalrous  sufferers  they  were 
in  1911.  She  is  a  buxom,  demure  dam 
sel  ;  and  in  her,  as  in  the  lad  by  her  side, 
there  is  a  suggestion  of  reserve  power. 
They  are  citizens  in  the  making,  prepared 
to  accept  soberly  the  restrictions  and  re 
sponsibilities  of  citizenship,  and  to  follow 
with  relish  the  star  of  their  own  destinies. 
And  all  things  considered,  what  can  be 
better  than  to  make  a  good  job  out  of  a 
given  piece  of  work  ?  "  That  intricate  web 
of  normal  expectation,"  which  Mr.  Gil 
bert  Murray  tells  us  is  the  very  essence 
of  human  society,  provides  incentives  for 
reasonable  men  and  women,  and  pro- 
35 


Counter-Currents 

vides  also  compensations  for  courage. 
What  Mr.  Murray  calls  a  "failure  of 
nerve"  in  Greek  philosophy  and  Greek 
religion  is  the  relaxing  of  effort,  the  let 
ting  down  of  obligation.  With  the  ascet 
icism  imposed,  or  at  least  induced,  by 
Christianity,  "  the  sacrifice  of  one  part  of 
human  nature  to  another,  that  it  may  live 
in  what  survives  the  more  completely, " 
he  has  but  scant  and  narrow  sympathy ; 
but  he  explains  with  characteristic  clear 
ness  that  the  ideals  of  Greek  citizenship 
withered  and  died,  because  of  a  weaken 
ing  of  faith  in  normal  human  resistance. 
"  All  the  last  manifestations  of  Hellenistic 
religion  betray  a  lack  of  nerve. " 

It  is  with  the  best  intentions  in  the 
world  that  we  Americans  are  now  en 
gaged  in  letting  down  the  walls  of  hu 
man  resistance,  in  lessening  personal 
obligation ;  and  already  the  failure  of 
nerve  is  apparent  on  every  side.  We  be 
gin  our  kindly  ministrations  with  the 
little  kindergarten  scholar,  to  whom  work 
36 


Our  Loss  of  Nerve 

is  presented  as  play,  and  who  is  expected 
to  absorb  the  elements  of  education  with 
out  conscious  effort,  and  certainly  with 
out  compulsion.  We  encourage  him  to 
feel  that  the  business  of  his  teacher  is  to 
keep  him  interested  in  his  task,  and  that  he 
is  justified  in  stopping  short  as  soon  as 
any  mental  process  becomes  irksome  or 
difficult.  Indeed,  I  do  not  know  why  I  per 
mit  myself  the  use  of  the  word  "  task," 
since  by  common  consent  it  is  banished 
from  the  vocabulary  of  school.  Professor 
Oilman  said  it  was  a  word  which  should 
never  be  spoken  by  teacher,  never  heard 
by  pupil,  and  no  doubt  a  kind-hearted 
public  cordially  agreed  with  him. 

The  firm  old  belief  that  the  task  is  a 
valuable  asset  in  education,  that  the 
making  of  a  good  job  out  of  a  given 
piece  of  work  is  about  the  highest  thing 
on  earth,  has  lost  its  hold  upon  the  world. 
The  firm  old  disbelief  in  a  royal  road  to 
learning  has  vanished  long  ago.  All 
knowledge,  we  are  told,  can  be  made  so 
37 


Counter-Currents 

attractive  that  school-children  will  absorb 
it  with  delight.  If  they  are  not  absorbing 
it,  the  teacher  is  to  blame.  Professor  Wie 
ner  tells  us  that  when  his  precocious  lit 
tle  son  failed  to  acquire  the  multiplica 
tion  tables,  he  took  him  away  from  school, 
and  let  him  study  advanced  mathematics. 
Whereupon  the  child  discovered  the  ta 
bles  for  himself.  Mrs.  John  Macy,  well 
known  to  the  community  as  the  friend 
and  instructor  of  Miss  Helen  Keller,  has 
informed  a  listening  world  that  she  does 
not  see  why  a  child  should  study  any 
thing  in  which  he  is  not  interested.  "  It 
is  a  waste  of  energy." 

Naturally,  it  is  hard  to  convince  par 
ents —  who  have  the  illusions  common 
to  their  estate  —  that  while  exceptional 
methods  may  answer  for  exceptional 
cases  (little  William  Pitt,  for  instance, 
was  trained  from  early  boyhood  to  be  a 
prime  minister),  common  methods  have 
their  value  for  the  rank  and  file.  It  is 
harder  still  to  make  them  understand 
38 


Our  Loss  of  Nerve 

that  enjoyment  cannot  with  safety  be 
accepted  as  a  determining  factor  in  edu 
cation,  and  that  the  mental  and  moral 
discipline  which  comes  of  hard  and  per 
haps  unwilling  study  is  worth  a  mine  of 
pleasantly  acquired  information.  It  is 
not,  after  all,  a  smattering  of  chemis 
try,  or  an  acquaintance  with  the  habits 
of  bees,  which  will  carry  our  children 
through  life ;  but  a  capacity  for  doing 
what  they  do  not  want  to  do,  if  it  be  a 
thing  which  needs  to  be  done.  They  will 
have  to  do  many  things  they  do  not 
want  to  do  later  on,  if  their  lives  are 
going  to  be  worth  the  living,  and  the 
sooner  they  learn  to  stand  to  their  guns, 
the  better  for  them,  and  for  all  those 
whose  welfare  will  lie  in  their  hands. 

The  assumption  that  children  should 
never  be  coerced  into  self-control,  and 
never  confronted  with  difficulties,  makes 
for  failure  of  nerve.  The  assumption  that 
young  people  should  never  be  burdened 
with  responsibilities,  and  never,  under 
39 


Counter-Currents 

any  stress  of  circumstances,  be  deprived 
of  the  pleasures  which  are  no  longer  a 
privilege,  but  their  sacred  and  inalien 
able  right,  makes  for  failure  of  nerve. 
The  assumption  that  married  women  are 
justified  in  abandoning  their  domestic 
duties,  because  they  cannot  stand  the 
strain  of  home-life  and  housekeeping, 
makes  for  failure  of  nerve.  The  assump 
tion  that  invalids  must  yield  to  invalid- 
ism,  must  isolate  themselves  from  com 
mon  currents  of  life,  and  from  strong 
and  stern  incentives  to  recovery,  makes 
for  failure  of  nerve.  The  assumption  that 
religion  should  content  itself  with  per 
suasiveness,  and  that  morality  should 
be  sparing  in  its  demands,  makes  for 
failure  of  nerve.  The  assumption  that  a 
denial  of  civic  rights  constitutes  a  release 
from  moral  obligations  makes  for  such 
a  shattering  failure  of  nerve  that  it  brings 
insanity  in  its  wake.  And  the  assumption 
that  poverty  justifies  prostitution,  or  ex 
onerates  the  prostitute,  lets  down  the  last 
40 


Our  Loss  of  Nerve 

walls  of  human  resistance.  It  is  easier  to 
find  a  royal  road  to  learning  than  a  royal 
road  to  self-mastery  and  self-respect. 

A  student  of  Mr.  Whistler's  once  said 
to  him  that  she  did  not  want  to  paint 
in  the  low  tones  he  recommended;  she 
wanted  to  keep  her  colours  clear  and 
bright.  "Then,"  replied  Mr.  Whistler, 
"  you  must  keep  them  in  your  tubes.  It 
is  the  only  way."  If  we  want  bright  col 
ours  and  easy  methods,  we  must  stay  in 
our  tubes,  and  avoid  the  inevitable  com 
plications  of  life  by  careful  and  consist 
ent  uselessness.  We  may  nurse  our 
nerves  in  comfortable  seclusion  at  home, 
or  we  may  brace  them  with  travel  and 
change  of  scene.  It  does  not  matter ;  we 
are  tube-dwellers  under  any  skies.  We 
may  be  so  dependent  upon  amusements 
that  we  never  call  them  anything  but 
duties ;  or  we  may  be  as  devout  as  La 
Fontaine's  rat,  which  piously  retired  from 
the  society  of  other  rats  into  the  heart 
of  a  Dutch  cheese.  We  may  be  so  rich 


Counter-Currents 

that  the  world  forgives  us,  or  so  poor 
that  the  world  exonerates  us.  In  each 
and  every  case  we  destroy  life  at  the 
roots  by  a  denial  of  its  obligations,  a 
fear  of  its  difficulties,  an  indifference  to 
its  common  rewards. 

The  seriousness  of  our  age  expresses 
itself  in  eloquent  demands  for  gayety. 
The  gospel  of  cheerfulness,  I  had  almost 
said  the  gospel  of  amusement,  is  preached 
by  people  who  lack  experience  to  people 
who  lack  vitality.  There  is  a  vague  im 
pression  that  the  world  would  be  a  good 
world  if  it  were  only  happy,  that  it  would 
be  happy  if  it  were  amused,  and  that  it 
would  be  amused  if  plenty  of  artificial 
recreation  —  that  recreation  for  which 
we  are  now  told  every  community  stands 
responsible  —  were  provided  for  its  en 
tertainment. 

A  few  years  ago  an  English  clergy 
man  made  an  eloquent  appeal  to  the 
public,  affirming  that  London's  crying 
need  was  a  score  of  "  Pleasure-Palaces," 
42 


Our  Loss  of  Nerve 

supported  by  taxpayers,  and  free  as  the 
Roman  games.  Gladiators  being,  indeed, 
out  of  date,  lions  costly,  and  martyrs  very 
scarce,  some  milder  and  simpler  form  of 
diversion  was  to  be  substituted  for  the 
vigorous  sports  of  Rome.  Comic  songs 
and  acrobats  were,  in  the  reverend  gen 
tleman's  opinion,  the  appointed  agents 
for  the  regeneration  of  the  London  poor. 
It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  drama  did 
not  occur  to  him  as  a  bigger  and  broader 
pastime.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the 
drama  is  fast  losing  ground  with  the  prole 
tariat,  once  its  staunch  upholders.  A  very 
hard-thinking  English  writer,  Mr.  J.  G. 
Leigh,  sees  in  the  substitution  of  cheap 
vaudeville  for  cheap  melodrama  an  in 
dication  of  what  he  calls  loss  of  stamina, 
and  of  what  Mr.  Murray  calls  loss  of 
nerve.  "When  the  sturdy  melodrama, 
with  its  foiled  villainy  and  triumphant 
virtue,  ceases  to  allure,  and  people  want 
in  its  place  the  vulgar  vapidities  of 
the  vaudeville,  we  may  be  sure  there 
43 


Counter-Currents 

is  a  spirit  of  sluggish  impotence  in  the 
air." 

To-day  the  moving  pictures  present 
the  most  triumphant  form  of  cheap  en 
tertainment.  They  are  good  of  their  kind, 
and  there  is  a  visible  effort  to  make  them 
better;  but  the  " special  features"  by 
which  they  are  accompanied  in  the  ten- 
and  fifteen-cent  shows, —  the  shrill  songs, 
the  dull  jokes,  the  clumsy  clog-dances, 
— are  all  of  an  incredible  badness.  Com 
pared  with  them,  the  worst  of  plays  seems 
good,  and  the  ill-paid  actors  who  storm 
and  sob  through  "Alone  in  a  Great 
City,"  or  "  No  Wedding  Bells  for  Her," 
assume  heroic  proportions,  as  minister 
ing  to  the  emotions  of  the  heart. 

The  question  of  amusement  is  one 
with  which  all  classes  are  deeply  con 
cerned.  Le  Monde  oh  Von  3 amuse  is  no 
longer  the  narrow  world  of  fashion.  It 
has  extended  its  border  lines  to  embrace 
humanity.  It  is  no  longer  an  exclusively 
adult  world.  The  pleasures  of  youth  have 
44 


Our  Loss  of  Nerve 

become  something  too  important  for  in 
terference,  too  sacred  for  denial.  What 
ever  may  be  happening  to  parents,  what 
ever  their  cares  and  anxieties,  the  sons 
and  daughters  must  lose  none  of  the  gay- 
eties  now  held  essential  to  their  happi 
ness.  They  are  trained  to  a  selfishness 
which  is  foreign  to  their  natures,  and 
which  does  them  grievous  wrong.  A  few 
years  ago  I  asked  an  acquaintance  about 
her  mother,  with  whom  she  lived,  and 
who  was,  I  knew,  incurably  ill.  "  She  is 
no  better,"  said  the  lady  disconsolately, 
"  and  I  must  say  it  is  very  hard  on  my 
children.  They  cannot  have  any  of  their 
young  friends  in  the  house.  They  cannot 
entertain.  They  have  been  cut  off  from 
all  social  pleasures  this  winter." 

I  said  it  was  a  matter  of  regret,  and 
I  forbore  to  add  that  the  poor  invalid 
would  probably  have  been  glad  to  die 
a  little  sooner,  had  she  been  given  the 
chance.  It  was  not  the  mere  selfishness 
of  old  age  which  kept  her  so  long  about 
45 


Counter-Currents 

it.  Yet  neither  was  my  acquaintance  the 
callous  creature  that  she  seemed.  Left 
to  herself,  she  would  not  have  begrudged 
her  mother  the  time  to  die ;  but  she  had 
been  deeply  imbued  with  the  conviction 
that  young  people  in  general,  and  her 
own  children  in  particular,  should  never 
be  saddened,  or  depressed,  or  asked  to 
assume  responsibilities,  or  be  called  upon 
for  self-denial.  She  was  preparing  them 
carefully  for  that  failure  of  nerve  which 
would  make  them  impotent  in  the  stress 
of  life. 

The  desire  of  the  modern  philanthro 
pist  to  provide  amusement  for  the  work 
ing-classes  is  based  upon  the  determina 
tion  of  the  working  classes  to  be  amused. 
He  is  as  keen  that  the  poor  shall  have 
their  fill  of  dancing,  as  Dickens,  in  his 
less  enlightened  age,  was  keen  that  the 
poor  should  have  their  fill  of  beer.  He 
knows  that  it  is  natural  for  young  men 
and  women  to  crave  diversion,  and  that 
it  is  right  for  them  to  have  it.  What 
46 


Our  Loss  of  Nerve 

he  does  not  clearly  understand,  what 
Dickens  did  not  clearly  understand,  is 
that  to  crave  either  amusement  or  drink 
so  weakly  that  we  cannot  conquer  our 
craving,  is  to  be  worthless  in  a  work-a- 
day  world. 

And  worse  than  worthless  in  a  world 
which  is  called  upon  for  heroism  and 
high  resolve.  A  cruel  lesson  taught  by 
the  war  is  the  degeneracy  of  the  British 
workman,  who,  in  the  hour  of  his  coun 
try's  need,  has  clung  basely  to  his  ease 
and  his  sottishness.  What  does  it  avail 
that  English  gentlemen  fling  away  their 
lives  with  unshrinking  courage,  when 
the  common  people,  from  whose  sturdy 
spirit  England  was  wont  to  draw  her 
strength,  have  shrivelled  into  a  craven 
apathy.  The  contempt  of  the  British  sol 
dier  for  the  British  artisan  is  not  the  con 
tempt  of  the  fighting  man  for  the  man  of 
peace.  It  is  the  loathing  of  the  man  who 
has  accepted  his  trust  for  the  man  who 
can  do  and  bear  nothing ;  who  cries  out 
47 


Counter-Currents 

if  his  drink  is  touched,  who  cries  out  if 
his  work  is  heavy,  who  cries  out  if  his 
hours  are  lengthened,  who  has  parted 
with  his  manhood,  and  does  not  want  it 
back.  Whatever  England  has  needed  for 
the  regeneration  of  her  sons,  it  was  cer 
tainly  not  "pleasure-palaces"  and  cheap 
amusements.  The  "  sluggish  impotence" 
which  Mr.  Leigh  observed  four  years 
ago,  did  not  call,  and  does  not  call,  for 
relaxation.  The  only  cure  will  be  so  stern 
that  no  one  cares  to  prophesy  its  coming. 
And  Americans!  Well,  thousands  of 
people  bearing  that  name  assembled  in 
New  York  on  the  I3th  of  November, 
1915,  under  the  auspices  of  the  Woman's 
Peace  Party,  and  amused  themselves  by 
denouncing  the  Administration,  howling 
down  all  mention  of  national  defence, 
and  jeering  every  time  the  word  patriot 
ism  (which  we  used  to  think  a  noble 
word)  was  spoken  in  their  hearing.  Men 
endeared  themselves  to  the  audience  by 
declaring  that  they  would  not  risk  their 
48 


Our  Loss  of  Nerve 

all  too  precious  lives  to  fight  for  any 
cause,  and  women  intelligently  asked 
why  a  foreign  rule  would  not  be  just  as 
good  as  a  home  one.  They  did  not  seem 
aware  that  Brussels  was  having  a  less 
enviable  time  than  Boston  or  Milwau 
kee.  Profound  foolishness  swayed  the 
audience,  abysmal  ignorance  soothed  it. 
There  was  an  abundant  showing  of  child 
ish  irrationality;  there  was  the  apathy 
which  befits  old  age ;  but  of  intelligence 
or  of  virility  there  was  nothing. 

This  loss  of  nerve,  this  "  weakening  of 
faith  in  normal  human  resistance,"  means 
the  disintegration  of  citizenship.  It  is  the 
sudden  call  to  manhood  which  shows  us 
where  manhood  is  not  to  be  found.  We 
Americans,  begirt  by  sentiment,  mindful 
of  our  ease,  and  spared  for  more  than 
half-a-century  from  ennobling  self-sacri 
fice,  have  been  seeking  smooth  and  facile 
methods  of  reform.  The  world,  grown 
old  in  ill-doing,  responds  nimbly  to  our 
offers  of  amusement,  but  balks  at  the 
49 


Counter-Currents 

austere  virtues  which  no  cajolery  can 
disguise.  The  more  it  is  amused,  the 
more  it  assumes  amusement  to  be  its 
due;  and  this  assumption  receives  the 
support  and  encouragement  of  those 
whose  experience  must  have  taught 
them  its  perils. 

Miss  Jane  Addams,  in  her  careful  study 
of  the  Chicago  streets,  speaks  of  the 
"  pleasure-loving  girl  who  demands  that 
each  evening  shall  bring  her  some  meas 
ure  of  recreation."  Miss  Addams  admits 
that  such  a  girl  is  beset  by  nightly  dan 
gers,  but  does  not  appear  to  think  her 
attitude  an  unnatural  or  an  unreason 
able  one.  A  very  able  and  intelligent 
woman  who  has  worked  hard  for  the  es 
tablishment  of  decently  conducted  dance- 
halls  in  New  York,  —  dance-halls  sorely 
needed  to  supplant  the  vicious  places  of 
entertainment  where  drink  and  degrada 
tion  walk  hand  in  hand,  —  was  asked  at 
a  public  meeting  whether  the  girls  for 
whose  welfare  she  was  pleading  never 
50 


Our  Loss  of  Nerve 

stayed  at  home.  "  Never,"  was  the  firm 
reply,  "  and  will  you  pardon  me  for  say 
ing,  Neither  do  you."  The  retort  pro 
voked  laughter,  because  the  young  mar 
ried  woman  who  had  put  the  question 
probably  never  did  spend  a  night  at 
home,  unless  she  were  entertaining.  She 
represented  a  social  summit,  —  a  combi 
nation  of  health,  wealth,  beauty,  charm 
and  high  spirits.  But  there  were  scores 
of  girls  and  women  in  the  audience 
who  spent  many  nights  at  home.  There 
are  hundreds  of  girls  and  women  in 
what  are  called  fashionable  circles  who 
spend  many  nights  at  home.  There  are 
thousands  of  girls  and  women  in  more 
modest  circumstances  who  spend  many 
nights  at  home.  If  this  were  not  the  case, 
our  cities  would  soon  present  a  spec 
tacle  of  demoralization.  They  would  be 
chaotic  on  the  surface,  and  rotten  at  the 
core. 

It  is  claimed  that  the  nervous  exhaus 
tion  produced  by  hours  of  sustained  and 


Counter-Currents 

monotonous  labour  sends  the  factory 
girl  into  the  streets  at  night.  She  is  too 
unstrung  for  rest.  That  this  is  in  a  meas 
ure  true,  no  experienced  worker  will 
deny,  because  every  experienced  worker 
is  familiar  with  the  sensation.  Every 
woman  who  has  toiled  for  hours,  whether 
with  a  sewing  machine  or  a  typewriter, 
whether  with  a  needle  or  a  pen,  whether 
in  an  office  or  at  home,  has  felt  the 
nervous  fatigue  which  does  not  crave 
rest  but  distraction,  which  makes  her 
want  to  "  go."  Every  woman  worth  her 
salt  has  overcome  this  weakness,  has 
mastered  this  desire.  It  is  probable  that 
many  men  suffer  and  struggle  in  the 
same  fashion.  Dr.  Johnson  certainly  did. 
With  inspired  directness,  he  speaks  of 
people  who  are  "  afraid  to  go  home  and 
think."  He  knew  that  fear.  Many  a  night 
it  drove  him  through  the  London  streets 
till  daybreak.  He  conquered  it,  con 
quered  the  sick  nerves  so  at  variance 
with  his  sound  mind  and  sound  princi- 
52 


Our  Loss  of  Nerve 

pies,  and  his  example  is  a  beacon  light 
to  strugglers  in  the  gloom. 

Naturally,  the  working  girl  knows 
nothing  about  Dr.  Johnson.  Unhappily, 
she  knows  little  of  any  beacon  light  or 
guide.  But,  if  she  be  a  reasonable  hu 
man  being,  she  does  know  that  to  expect 
every  evening  to  "  bring  her  some  meas 
ure  of  recreation"  is  an  utterly  unrea 
sonable  demand,  and  that  it  can  be 
gratified  only  at  the  risk  of  her  physical 
and  moral  undoing.  She  has  been  taught 
to  read  in  our  public  schools  ;  she  is  pro 
vided  with  countless  novels  and  story 
books  by  our  public  libraries ;  the  light 
est  of  light  literature  is  at  her  command. 
Is  this  not  enough  to  tide  her  over  a 
night  or  two  in  the  week  ?  If  her  clothes 
never  need  mending  or  renovating,  she 
is  unlike  any  other  woman  the  world  has 
got  to  show.  If  there  is  never  any  wash 
ing,  ironing,  or  housework  for  her  to  do, 
her  position  is.  at  once  unusual  and  re 
grettable.  If  she  will  not  sometimes  read, 
53 


Counter-Currents 

or  work,  or,  because  she  is  tired,  go  early 
to  bed ;  if  her  craving  for  amusement  has 
reached  that  acute  stage  when  only  the 
streets,  or  the  moving  pictures,  or  the 
dance-hall  will  satisfy  it,  she  has  so  com 
pletely  lost  nerve  that  she  has  no  moral 
stamina  left.  She  may  be  virtuous,  but 
she  is  an  incapable  weakling,  and  the 
working  man  who  marries  her  ruins  his 
life.  Such  girls  swell  the  army  of  de 
serted  wives  which  is  the  despair  of  all 
organized  charities. 

The  sincere  effort  to  regenerate  the 
world  by  amusing  it  is  to  be  respected  ; 
but  it  is  not  the  final  word  of  reform. 
The  sincere  effort  to  regenerate  the  world 
by  a  legal  regulation  of  wages  is  a  new 
version  of  an  old  story,  —  the  shifting  of 
personal  obligation,  the  search  for  some 
body's  door  at  which  to  lay  the  burden 
of  blame.  It  is  also  a  denial  of  human 
experience,  inherited  and  acquired,  and 
a  rejection  of  the  only  doctrine  which 
stands  for  self-respect:  "  Temptations  do 
54 


Our  Loss  of  Nerve 

not  make  the  man,  but  they  show  him 
for  what  he  is."  Qualities  nourished  by 
this  stern  and  sane  doctrine  die  with  the 
withering  of  faith. 

So  much  well-meant,  but  not  harmless 
nonsense  —  nonsense  is  never  harmless 
—  has  been  preached  concerning  women 
and  their  wages,  that  we  are  in  the  pre 
dicament  of  Sydney  Smith  when  Macau- 
lay  flooded  him  with  talk.  We  positively 
"  stand  in  the  slops."  A  professor  of  eco 
nomics  in  an  American  college  offers  out 
of  the  fulness  of  his  heart  the  following 
specific  and  original  remedy  for  existing 
ills:  "My  idea  is  that  one  of  the  best 
ways  to  get  an  increased  remuneration 
for  women  is  to  make  them  worth  it." 

"My  idea!"  This  is  what  it  means 
to  have  the  scientific  mind  at  work.  A 
unique  proposition  (what  have  we  been 
thinking  about  with  our  free  schools  for 
the  past  hundred  years  ?),  unclogged  by 
detail,  unhampered  by  ways  and  means. 
And  if  we  do  not  see  salvation  in  truisms, 
55 


Counter-Currents 

if  we  are  daunted  by  the  gulf  between 
people  who  are  theorizing  and  people 
who  are  merely  living,  we  can  take  ref 
uge  with  the  reformers  who  demand 
"increased  remuneration  for  women" 
whether  they  are  worth  it  or  not ;  who 
would  make  the  need  of  the  worker,  and 
not  the  quality  of  the  work,  the  deter 
mining  factor  in  wages.  We  may  "  pro 
tect  women  from  themselves,"  by  prohib 
iting  them  from  accepting  less  than  their 
legal  hire. 

The  only  real  peril  of  a  minimum  wage- 
law  is  that  it  has  a  tendency  to  relegate 
the  incompetent  to  beggary.  It  cannot, 
as  some  economists  claim,  discourage 
efficiency.  Nothing  can  discourage  effi 
ciency,  which  scorns  help  and  defies  hin 
drance.  But,  by  the  same  ruling,  nothing 
can  command  more  than  it  is  worth  in 
the  markets  of  the  world.  We  do  wrong 
when  we  release  the  worker  from  any 
incentive  to  good  work.  We  do  wrong 
when  we  release  her  from  a  sense  of  per- 

56 


Our  Loss  of  Nerve 

sonal  responsibility.  We  do  wrong  when 
we  give  her  a  plausible  excuse  for  follow 
ing  the  line  of  least  resistance,  when  we 
blight  her  courage  by  permitting  her  to 
think  that  her  moral  welfare  lies  in  any 
hands  but  her  own.  The  choice  between 
poverty  and  dishonesty,  the  choice  be 
tween  poverty  and  prostitution  is  not  an 
"  open  question."  It  is  closed,  if  human 
reason  and  human  experience  can  speak 
authoritatively  upon  any  subject  in  the 
world. 

The  injury  done  by  loose  thinking  and 
loose  talking  is  irremediable.  When  the 
State  Senate  Vice  Investigating  Com 
mittee  of  Illinois  permitted  and  encour 
aged  an  expression  of  what  it  was  pleased 
to  call  the  "shop-girl's  philosophy,"  it 
sowed  the  seeds  of  mischief  deep  enough 
to  insure  a  heavy  crop  of  evil.  I  quote  a 
single  episode,  as  it  was  reported  in  the 
newspapers  of  March  8th,  1913,  —  a  re 
port  which,  if  inaccurate  in  detail,  must 
be  correct  in  substance.  A  young  wo- 
57 


Counter-Currents 

man  who  had  been  in  the  employ  of 
Sears,  Roebuck  &  Co.  was  on  the  stand. 
She  was  questioned  by  Lieutenant-Gov 
ernor  O'Hara. 

" '  If  a  girl  were  getting  $8  a  week,  and 
had  to  support  a  widowed  mother,  would 
you  blame  that  girl  if  she  committed  a 
crime?' 

"  The  witness  looked  up  frankly,  and 
replied,  *  No,  J  would  n't.' 

"  *  Would  you  blame  her  if  she  killed 
herself?' 

"  *  No,  I  would  n't,'  came  the  emphatic 
reply. 

"'And  would  you  blame  her,  if  she 
committed  a  greater  crime  ? ' 

"The  young  Lieutenant-Governor's 
meaning  was  in  his  embarrassed  tones 
and  in  his  heightened  colour.  The  girl 
was  the  more  composed  of  the  two.  She 
paused  a  moment,  and  then  repeated  dis 
tinctly,  '  No,  I  would  n't.' 

"  The  room  had  been  painfully  quiet, 
but  at  this  there  was  a  round  of  applause, 

38 


Our  Loss  of  Nerve 

led  by  the  women  spectators.  It  was  the 
first  general  spontaneous  outburst  of  the 
session.  '  Emily '  was  then  dismissed." 

Dismissed  with  the  "round  of  ap 
plause  "  ringing  in  her  ears,  and  in  her 
mind  the  comfortable  assurance  that  her 
theory  of  life  was  a  sound  one.  Also  that 
a  warm-hearted  public  was  prepared  to 
exonerate  her,  should  she  find  a  virtuous 
life  too  onerous  for  endurance.  Is  it 
likely  that  this  girl,  and  hundreds  of  other 
Emilys,  thus  encouraged  to  let  down  the 
walls  of  resistance,  can  be  saved  from 
the  hopeless  failure  of  nerve  which  will 
relegate  them  to  the  ranks  of  the  de 
feated?  Is  it  likely  that  the  emotional 
hysteria  of  the  applauding  audience,  and 
of  hundreds  of  similar  audiences,  can  be 
reduced  to  reason  by  such  sober  statis 
tics  as  those  furnished  by  the  Bureau  of 
Social  Hygiene  in  New  York,  or  by  the 
New  York  State  Reformatory  for  Wo 
men  at  Bedford  Hills  ?  Less  than  three 
per  cent  of  seven  hundred  girls  exam- 
59 


Counter-Currents 

ined  at  the  Bedford  Hills  reformatory 
pleaded  poverty  as  a  reason  for  their 
fall;  and,  of  this  three  per  cent,  more 
than  half  had  been  temporarily  out  of 
work.  On  the  other  hand,  twenty  per 
cent  were  feeble-minded,  were  mentally 
incapacitated  for  self-control,  and  as 
much  at  the  mercy  of  their  instincts  as 
so  many  animals.  These  are  the  blame 
less  unfortunates  whom  vice  commission 
ers  seem  somewhat  disposed  to  ignore. 
These  are  the  women  who  should  be 
protected  from  themselves,  and  from 
whose  progeny  the  public  should  be  pro 
tected. 

It  is  evident  that  triumphant  virtue 
must  have  strong  foundations.  Income 
and  recreation  are  but  slender  props. 
Becky  Sharp  was  of  the  opinion  that, 
given  five  thousand  pounds  a  year,  she 
could  be  as  respectable  as  her  neigh 
bours  ;  but,  in  our  hearts,  we  have  al 
ways  doubted  Becky.  "  Where  virtue  is 
well  rooted,"  said  the  watchful  Saint 
60 


Our  Loss  of  Nerve 

Theresa,  "  provocations  matter  little." 
All  results  are  in  proportion  to  the  great 
ness  of  the  spirit  which  has  nourished 
them.  When  Cromwell  made  the  dis 
comforting  discovery  that  "  tapsters  and 
town  apprentices"  could;  not  stand  in 
battle  against  the  Cavaliers,  he  said  to 
his  cousin,  John  Hampden,  that  he  must 
have  men  of  religion  to  fight  with  men 
of  honour.  He  summoned  these  men  of 
religion,  fired  them  with  enthusiasm, 
hardened  them  into  consistency,  and 
within  fourteen  years  the  nations  which 
had  mocked  learned  to  fear,  and  the 
name  of  England  was  "  made  terrible  " 
to  the  world. 

For  big  issues  we  must  have  strong 
incentives  and  compelling  measures. 
"Where  the  religious  emotions  surge 
up,"  says  Mr.  Gilbert  Murray,  "the 
moral  emotions  are  not  far  away."  Per 
haps  the  mighty  forces  which  have  win 
nowed  the  world  for  centuries  may  still 
prove  efficacious.  Perhaps  the  illuminat- 
61 


Counter-Currents 

ing  principles  of  religion,  the  ennobling 
spirit  of  patriotism,  the  uncompromising 
standards  of  morality,  may  do  more  to 
stiffen  our  powers  of  resistance  than  lec 
tures  on  "  Life  as  a  Fine  Art,"  or  papers 
on  "The  Significance  of  Play,"  and 
"Amusement  as  a  Factor  in  Man's 
Spiritual  Uplift."  Perhaps  the  stable 
government  which  ensures  to  the  Indus 
trious  Apprentice  the  reward  of  his  own 
diligence  is  more  bracing  to  citizenship 
than  the  zealous  humanity  which  pro 
tects  the  Idle  Apprentice  from  the  con 
sequences  of  his  own  ill-doing. 


Christianity  and  War 

THERE  are  two  disheartening 
features  in  the  attitude  of  Amer 
icans  toward  the  ruthless  war 
which  has  been  waged  in  Europe  for  the 
past  two  years.  One  is  the  materialism 
of  pacifists  who  ignore,  and  have  stead 
ily  ignored,  the  crucial  question  of  right 
and  wrong,  justice  and  injustice.  The 
other  is  the  materialism  of  pious  Chris 
tians  who  lament  the  failure  of  Chris 
tianity  to  reconcile  the  irreconcilable,  to 
preserve  the  long-threatened  security  of 
nations. 

When,  at  the  request  of  President  Wil 
son,  the  first  Sunday  of  October,  1914, 
was  set  aside  as  a  day  of  prayer  for  peace, 
—  a  day  of  many  sermons  and  of  many 
speeches,  —  prayers  and  sermons  and 
speeches  all  alluded  to  the  war  as  though 
it  were  the  cholera  or  the  plague,  some- 
63 


Counter-Currents 

thing  simple  of  issue,  the  abatement 
of  which  would  mean  people  getting 
better,  the  cure  of  which  would  mean 
people  getting  well.  The  possibility  of 
a  peace  shameful  to  justice  and  dis 
astrous  to  civilization  was  carefully  ig 
nored.  The  truth  that  death  is  better 
than  a  surrender  of  all  that  makes  life 
morally  worth  the  living,  was  never 
spoken.  This  may  be  what  neutrality 
implies.  We  addressed  the  Almighty  in 
guarded  language  lest  He  should  mis 
understand  our  position.  We  listened 
respectfully  when  Secretary  Bryan  told 
us  that  our  first  duty  was  to  use  what 
influence  we  might  have  to  hasten  the 
return  of  peace,  without  asking  him  to 
be  more  explicit,  to  say  what  on  earth 
he  would  have  had  us  do,  and  how  — 
without  moving  hand  or  foot  —  he  would 
have  had  us  do  it. 

Since  then,  men  of  little  faith  have 
kept  dinning  in  our  ears  that  religion  is 
eclipsed,  that  Gospel  law  lacks  the  sub- 
64 


Christianity  and  War 

stance  of  a  dream,  that  Christian  prin 
ciples  are  bankrupt  in  the  hour  of  need, 
that  the  only  God  now  worshipped  in 
Europe  is  the  tribal  God  who  fights  for 
his  own  people,  and  that  the  structure 
of  love  and  duty,  reared  by  centuries  of 
Christianity,  has  toppled  into  ruin.  To 
quote  Professor  Cramb's  classic  phrase, 
"  Corsica  has  conquered  Galilee."  Some 
of  these  sad-minded  prophets  had  fathers 
and  grandfathers  who  fought  in  the 
Civil  War,  and  they  seem  in  no  wise 
troubled  by  this  distressful  fact.  Some 
of  them  had  great-great-grandfathers 
who  fought  in  the  Revolutionary  War, 
and  they  join  high-sounding  societies 
out  of  illogical  pride.  Yet  the  colonists 
who  defended  their  freedom  and  their 
new-born  national  life  were  not  more 
justified  in  shedding  blood,  than  were 
the  French  and  Belgians  and  Serbians 
who  heroically  defended  their  invaded 
countries  and  their  shattered  homes. 
When  Mr.  Carnegie  thanked  God 
65 


Counter-Currents 

(through  the  medium  of  the  newspapers) 
that  he  lived  in  a  brotherhood  of  nations, 
— "forty-eight  nations  in  one  Union," 
—  he  forgot  that  these  forty-eight  na 
tions,  or  at  least  thirty-eight  of  them, 
were  not  always  a  brotherhood.  Nor  was 
the  family  tie  preserved  by  moral  suasion. 
What  we  of  the  North  did  was  to  beat  our 
brothers  over  the  head  until  they  con 
sented  to  be  brotherly.  And  some  three 
hundred  thousand  of  them  died  of  griev 
ous  wounds  and  fevers  rather  than  love 
us  as  they  should. 

This  was  termed  preserving  the  Union. 
The  abiding  gain  is  visible  to  all  men, 
and  it  is  not  our  habit  to"  question  the 
methods  employed  for  its  preservation. 
No  one  called  or  calls  the  "  Battle  Hymn 
of  the  Republic"  a  cry  to  a  tribal  God, 
although  it  very  plainly  tells  the  Lord 
that  his  place  is  with  the  Federal,  and 
not  with  the  .Confederate  lines.  And 
when  the  unhappy  Belgians  crowded  the 
Cathedral  of  St.  Gudule,  asking  Heav- 
66 


Christianity  and  War 

en's  help  for  defenceless  Brussels,  im 
ploring  the  intercession  of  our  Lady  of 
Deliverance  (pitiful  words  that  wring  the 
heart !),  was  this  a  cry  to  a  tribal  God,  or 
the  natural  appeal  of  humanity  to  a  power 
higher  and  more  merciful  than  man? 
Americans  returning  from  war-stricken 
Europe  in  the  autumn  of  1914  spoke 
unctuously  of  their  country  as  "  God's 
own  land,"  by  which  they  meant  a  land 
where  their  luggage  was  unmolested. 
But  it  is  possible  that  nations  fighting 
with  their  backs  to  the  wall  for  all  they 
hold  sacred  and  dear  are  as  justified  in 
the  sight  of  God  as  a  nation  smugly 
content  with  its  own  safety,  living 
its  round  of  pleasures,  giving  freely  of 
its  superfluity,  and  growing  rich  with 
the  vast  increase  of  its  industries  and 
trade. 

What  influence  has  been  at  work  since 

the  close  of  the  Franco-Prussian  War, 

shutting  our  eyes  to  the  certainty  of  that 

war's  final  issue,  and  debauching  our 

6? 


Counter-Currents 

minds  with  sentiment  which  had  no  truth 
to  rest  on?  We  knew  that  the  taxes  of 
Europe  were  spent  on  armaments,  and 
we  talked  about  International  Arbitra 
tion.  We  knew  that  science  was  devot 
edly  creating  ruthless  instruments  of  de 
struction,  and  we  turned  our  pleased 
attention  to  the  beautiful  ceremonies 
with  which  the  Peace  Palace  at  The 
Hague  was  dedicated.  We  knew,  or  we 
might  have  known,  that  the  strategic 
railway  built  by  Germany  to  carry  troops 
to  the  Belgian  frontier  was  begun  in 
1904,  and  that  the  memorandum  of  Gen 
eral  Schlieffen  was  sanctioned  by  the 
Emperor  (there  was  no  pretence  of  se 
crecy)  in  1909.  Yet  we  thought — in 
common  with  the  rest  of  the  world  — 
that  a  "scrap  of  paper"  and  a  plighted 
word  would  constitute  protection.  We 
knew  that  Germany's  answer  to  Eng 
land's  proposals  for  a  mutual  reduction 
of  navies  was  an  increase  of  estimates, 
and  a  double  number  of  dreadnoughts. 
68 


Christianity  and  War 

Did  we  suppose  these  dreadnoughts  were 
playthings  for  the  Imperial  nurseries? 

"A  pretty  toy,"    quoth   she,  "  the  Thunderer's 

bolt! 
My  urchins  play  with  it." 

When  in  1911  President  Taft's  "mes 
sage"  was  hailed  as  a  prophecy  of 
peace,  Germany's  reply  was  spoken  by 
Bethmann-Hollweg :  "  The  vital  strength 
of  a  nation  is  the  only  measure  of  a  na 
tion's  armaments." 

And  now  the  good  people  who  for 
years  have  been  saying  that  war  is  ar 
chaic,  are  reproaching  Christianity  for 
not  making  it  impossible.  Did  not  the 
"  American  Association  for  International 
Conciliation"  issue  comforting  pam 
phlets,  entitled  "The  Irrationality  of 
War,"  and  "War  Practically  Prevent 
able  "  ?  That  ought  to  have  settled  the 
matter  forever.  Did  we  not  appoint  a 
"Peace  Day"  for  our  schools,  and  a 
"  Peace  Sunday  "  for  churches  and  Sun 
day  schools  ?  Did  not  Mr.  Carnegie  pay 
69 


Counter-Currents 

ten  millions  down  for  international  peace, 
—  and  get  a  very  poor  article  for  his 
money  ?  There  were  some  beautiful  pa 
pers  read  to  the  Peace  Congress  at  The 
Hague,  just  twelve  months  before  Eu 
rope  was  in  flames ;  and  there  is  the  re 
port  of  a  commission  of  inquiry  which 
the  "  World  Peace  Foundation,"  for 
merly  the  "  International  School  of 
Peace,"  informed  us  three  years  ago 
was  "a  great  advance  toward  assured 
peaceful  relations  between  nations." 

With  this  sea  of  sentiment  billowing 
about  us,  and  with  Nobel  prizes  drop 
ping  like  gentle  rain  from  Heaven  upon 
thirsty  peace-lovers,  how  should  we  read 
the  signs  of  war,  written  in  the  language 
of  artillery?  It  is  true  that  President 
Nicholas  Murray  Butler,  speaking  in 
behalf  of  the  Carnegie  Peace  Founda 
tion,  observed  musingly  in  November, 
1913,  that  there  was  no  visible  interest 
displayed  by  any  foreign  government, 
or  by  any  responsible  foreign  statesman, 
70 


Christianity  and  War 

in  the  preparations  for  the  Third  Hague 
Conference,  scheduled  for  1915  ;  but  this 
was  not  a  matter  for  concern.  It  was 
more  interesting  to  read  about  the  pho 
tographs  of  "  educated  and  humane  men 
and  women,"  which  the  "  World  Confer 
ence  for  Promoting  Concord  between 
all  Divisions  of  Mankind"  (a  title  that 
leaves  nothing,  save  grammar,  to  be  de 
sired)  proposed  collecting  in  a  vast  and 
honoured  album  for  the  edification  of  the 
peaceful  earth. 

And  all  this  time  England  —  England, 
with  her  life  at  stake  —  shared  our  serene 
composure.  Lord  Salisbury,  indeed,  and 
Lord  Roberts  cherished  no  illusions  con 
cerning  Germany's  growing  power  and 
ultimate  intentions.  But  then  Lord  Rob 
erts  was  a  soldier ;  and  Lord  Salisbury, 
though  outwitted  in  the  matter  of  Heli 
goland,  had  that  quality  of  mistrust 
which  is  always  so  painful  in  a  states 
man.  The  English  press  preferred,  on 
the  whole,  to  reflect  the  opinions  of  Lord 


Counter-Currents 

Haldane.  They  were  amiable  and  sooth 
ing.  Lord  Haldane  knew  the  Kaiser,  and 
deemed  him  a  friendly  man.  Had  he  not 
cried  harder  than  anybody  else  at  Queen 
Victoria's  funeral?  Lord  Haldane  had 
translated  Schopenhauer,  and  could  af 
ford  to  ignore  Treitschke.  None  of  the 
German  professors  with  whom  he  was 
on  familiar  terms  were  of  the  Treitschke 
mind.  They  were  all  friendly  men.  It  is 
true  that  Germany,  far  from  talking  plati 
tudes  about  peace,  has  for  years  past  de 
nned  with  amazing  lucidity  and  candour 
her  doctrine  that  might  is  right.  She  is 
strong,  brave,  covetous,  she  has  what  is 
called  in  urbane  language  "  the  instinct 
for  empire,"  and  she  follows  implicitly 

"  The  good  old  rule,  .  .  .  the  simple  plan, 
That  they  should  take  who  have  the  power, 
And  they  should  keep  who  can." 

It  was  forlornly  amusing  to  see,  three 
months  after  the  declaration  of  war,  our 
book-shops  filled  with  cheap  copies  of 
General  von  Bernhardi's  bellicose  vol- 
72 


Christianity  and  War 

ume ;  to  open  our  newspapers,  and  find 
column  after  column  of  quotation  from 
it ;  to  pick  up  our  magazines,  and  dis 
cover  that  all  the  critics  were  busy  dis 
cussing  it.  That  book  was  published  in 
1911,  and  the  world  (outside  of  Germany 
which  took  its  text  to  heart)  remained 
"  more  than  usual  calm."  Its  forcible  and 
closely  knit  argument  is  defined  and 
condensed  in  one  pregnant  sentence : 
"  The  notion  that  a  weak  nation  has  the 
same  right  to  live  as  a  powerful  nation 
is  a  presumptuous  encroachment  on  the 
natural  law  of  development." 

This  is  something  different  from  the 
suavities  of  peace-day  orators.  It  is  also 
vastly  different  from  the  sentiments  so 
gently  expressed  by  General  von  Bern- 
hardi  in  his  more  recent  volume,  die- 
tated  by  German  diplomacy,  and  de 
signed  as  a  tract  for  the  United  States 
and  other  neutral  nations.  Soothing 
syrup  is  not  sweeter  than  this  second 
book  ;  but  its  laboured  explanations,  its 
73 


Counter-Currents 

amiable  denials,  even  the  pretty  compli 
ment  paid  us  by  a  quotation  from  "  A 
Psalm  of  Life"  (why  ignore  "  Mary  had 
a  little  lamb  "?),  have  failed  to  obliterate 
the  sharp,  clear  outlines  of  his  pitiless 
policy.  Being  now  on  the  safe  side  of 
prophecy,  we  wag  our  heads  over  the 
amazing  exactitude  with  which  Bern- 
hardi  forecast  Germany's  impending 
war.  But  there  was  at  least  one  Eng 
lish  student  and  observer,  Professor  J.  A. 
Cramb  of  Queen's  College,  London,  who 
gave  plain  and  unheeded  warning  of  the 
fast-deepening  peril,  and  of  the  life-or- 
death  struggle  which  England  would  be 
compelled  to  face.  Step  by  step  he  traced 
the  expansion  of  German  nationalism, 
which  since  1870  has  never  swerved 
from  its  stern  military  ideals.  A  reading 
people,  the  Germans.  Yes,  and  in  a  sin 
gle  year  they  published  seven  hundred 
books  dealing  with  war  as  a  science,  — 
not  one  of  them  written  for  a  prize !  If 
the  weakness  of  Germany  lies  in  her  as- 
74 


Christianity  and  War 

sumption  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
honour  or  integrity  in  international  re 
lations,  her  strength  lies  in  her  reliance 
on  her  own  carefully  measured  efficiency. 
Her  contempt  for  other  nations  has  kept 
pace  with  the  distrust  she  inspires. 

The  graceful  remark  of  a  Prussian  offi 
cial  to  Matthew  Arnold,  "It  is  not  so 
much  that  we  dislike  England,  as  that 
we  think  little  of  her,"  was  the  expres 
sion  of  a  genuine  Teutonic  sentiment. 
So,  too,  was  General  von  Bernhardi's 
characteristic  sneer  at  the  "  childlike " 
confidence  reposed  by  Mr.  Elihu  Root 
and  his  friends  in  the  Hague  High  Court 
of  International  Justice,  with  public  opin 
ion  at  its  back.  Of  what  worth,  he  asked, 
is  law  that  cannot  be  converted  by  force 
into  government?  What  is  the  weight  of 
opinion,  unsupported  by  the  glint  of 
arms  ?  Professor  Cramb,  seeing  in  Bern- 
hardi,  and  in  his  great  master,  Treit- 
schke,  the  inspiration  of  their  country's 
high  ambition,  told  England  in  the 
75 


Counter-Currents 

plainest  words  he  could  command  that 
just  as  the  old  German  Imperialism  be 
gan  with  the  destruction  of  Rome,  so 
would  the  new  German  Imperialism  be 
gin  with  the  destruction  of  England ;  and 
that  if  Englishmen  dreamed  of  security 
from  attack,  they  were  destined  to  a  ter 
rible  and  bloody  awakening.  Happily 
for  himself,  —  since  he  was  a  man  too 
old  and  ill  to  fight,  —  he  died  nine  months 
before  the  fulfilment  of  his  prophecy. 

Now  that  the  inevitable  has  come  to 
pass,  now  that  the  armaments  have  been 
put  to  the  use  for  which  they  were  al 
ways  intended,  and  the  tale  of  battle  is 
too  terrible  to  be  told,  press  and  pulpit 
are  calling  Christianity  to  account  for 
its  failure  to  preserve  peace.  Ethical  so 
cieties  are  reminding  us,  with  something 
which  sounds  like  elation,  that  they  have 
long  pointed  out  "  the  relaxed  hold  of 
doctrine  on  the  minds  of  the  educated 
classes."  How  they  love  that  phrase, 
"educated  classes,"  and  what,  one  won- 
76 


Christianity  and  War 

ders,  do  they  mean  by  it?  A  Jewish 
rabbi,  speaking  in  Carnegie  hall,  la 
ments,  or  rejoices  —  it  is  hard  to  tell 
which  —  that  Christian  Churches  are  not 
taken,  and  do  not  take  themselves,  seri 
ously.  Able  editors  comment  in  military 
language  upon  the  inability  of  religious 
forces  to  " mobilize"  rapidly  and  effect 
ively  in  the  interests  of  peace,  and  turn 
out  neat  phrases  like  "  anti-Christian 
Christendom,"  which  are  very  effective 
in  editorials.  Popular  preachers,  too 
broad-minded  to  submit  to  clerical  au 
thority,  deliver  "  syndicated  sermons," 
denouncing  the  "  creeds  of  the  Dark 
Ages,"  which  still,  in  these  electricity- 
lighted  days,  pander  to  war.  Worse  than 
all,  troubled  men,  seeing  the  world  sud 
denly  bereft  of  justice  and  of  mercy,  lose 
courage,  and  whisper  in  the  silence  of 
their  own  sad  hearts,  "  There  is  no  God." 
Meanwhile,  the  assaulted  churches 
take,  as  is  natural,  somewhat  conflicting 
views  of  the  situation.  Roman  Catho- 
77 


Counter-Currents 

lies  have  been  disposed  to  think  that  the 
persecutions  of  the  Church  in  France  are 
bearing  bitter  fruit;  and  at  least  one 
American  Cardinal  has  spoken  of  the 
war  as  God's  punishment  for  this  offence. 
But  if  the  Almighty  appointed  Belgium 
to  be  the  whipping  boy  for  the  sins  of 
France,  we  shall  have  to  revise  our  no 
tions  of  divine  justice  and  beneficence. 
Belgium  is  the  most  Catholic  country  in 
Europe.  Hundreds  of  the  priests  and 
nuns  expelled  from  France  found  shelter 
within  its  frontiers.  But  if  it  were  as 
stoutly  Lutheran  or  Calvinistic,  it  would 
be  none  the  less  innocent  of  France's 
misdemeanours.  Moreover,  it  is  worthy 
of  note  that  French  priests,  far  from 
moralizing  over  the  situation,  have  ral 
lied  to  their  country's  call.  The  bugbear, 
"  clerical  peril,"  has  dropped  out  of  sight. 
In  its  place  are  confidence  on  the  one 
side,  and  unstinted  devotion  on  the 
other.  Exiled  monks  have  returned  to 
fight  in  the  French  army.  Students  of 
78 


Christianity  and  War 

theological  seminaries  have  been  no  less 
keen  than  other  students  to  take  up  arms 
for  France.  Abbes  have  served  as  ser 
geants  and  ensigns,  dying  as  cheerfully 
as  other  men  in  the  monotonous  carnage 
on  the  Aisne.  Wounded  priests  have 
shrived  their  wounded  comrades  on  the 
battlefield.  Everywhere  the  clergy  are 
playing  manly  and  patriotic  parts,  for 
getting  what  wrong  was  done  them,  re 
membering  what  name  they  bear. 

England,  with  more  precision,  outlined 
her  views  in  the  manifesto  issued  Sep 
tember  29,  1914,  and  designed  as  a  reply 
to  those  German  theologians  who  had 
asked  English  "  Evangelical  Christians" 
to  hold  back  their  hands  from  blood 
shed.  The  manifesto  was  signed  by 
Bishops  and  Archbishops  of  the  Church 
of  England,  and  by  leading  Noncon 
formists,  all  of  whom  found  themselves 
for  once  in  heartfelt  amity.  It  is  a  plain- 
spoken  document,  declaring  that  truth 
and  honour  (it  might  have  added  safety) 
79 


Counter-Currents 

are  better  things  than  peace ;  and  that 
Christian  England  endorses  without  res 
ervation  the  Tightness  of  the  war.  One 
of  the  signers,  the  Bishop  of  London,  is 
chaplain  to  the  London  Rifle  Brigade. 
No  doubt  about  his  sentiments.  The 
words  of  another,  the  Archbishop  of 
York,  are  simple,  sincere,  and  pleasantly 
free  from  patronage  of  the  Almighty.  "  I 
dare  to  say  that  we  can  carry  this  cause 
without  shame  or  misgiving  into  the  pres 
ence  of  Him  who  is  the  Judge  of  the 
whole  earth,  and  ask  Him  to  bless  it." 

As  for  Germany,  it  may  be,  as  some 
enthusiasts  assert,  that  her  "creative 
power  in  religion,"  keeping  pace  with 
her  "  genius  for  empire,"  will  turn  her 
out  a  brand-new  faith,  the  "  world-faith  " 
foreseen  by  Treitschke,  a  religion  of 
valour  and  of  unceasing  effort.  Or  it 
may  be  that  the  God  of  her  fathers  will 
content  her,  seeing  that  she  leaves  Him 
so  little  to  do.  Like  Cromwell,  who  was 
a  religious  man  (his  thanksgiving  for  the 
80 


Christianity  and  War 

massacre  at  Drogheda  was  as  heartfelt 
as  any  offered  by  the  Kaiser,  or  by  the 
Kaiser's  grandfather),  Germany  keeps 
her  powder  dry. 

Christianity  and  war  have  walked  to 
gether  down  the  centuries.  How  could 
it  be  otherwise?  We  have  to  reckon 
with  humanity,  and  humanity  is  not 
made  over  every  hundred  years.  Sci 
ence  has  multiplied  instruments  of  de 
struction,  but  the  heart  of  the  soldier 
is  the  same.  It  is  an  anachronism,  this 
human  heart,  just  as  war  is  an  anach 
ronism,  but  it  still  beats.  Nothing 
sacred  and  dear  could  have  survived 
upon  the  earth  had  men  not  fought  for 
their  women,  their  homes,  their  indi 
vidual  honour,  and  their  national  life. 
And  while  men  stay  men,  they  must 
give  up  their  lives  when  the  hour  strikes. 
How  shall  they  believe  that,  dying  on 
the  frontiers  of  their  invaded  countries, 
or  at  the  gates  of  their  besieged  towns, 
they  sin  against  the  law  of  Christ  ? 
81 


Counter-Currents 

Heroism  is  good  for  the  soul,  and  it 
bears  as  much  practical  fruit  as  law- 
making.  It  goes  further  in  moulding 
and  developing  the  stuff  of  which  a 
great  nation  is  made.  "  There  is  a  flower 
of  honour,  there  is  a  flower  of  chivalry, 
there  is  a  flower  of  religion."  So  Sainte- 
Beuve  equips  the  spirit  of  man ;  and  the 
soldier,  no  less  than  the  civilian,  cher 
ishes  this  threefold  bloom.  Because  he 
"lives  dangerously,"  he  feels  the  need 
of  God.  Because  his  life  is  forfeit,  there 
is  about  him  the  dignity  of  sacrifice. 
Anna  Robeson  Burr,  in  her  volume  on 
"The  Autobiography,"  quotes  an  illus 
trative  passage  from  the  Commentaries 
of  that  magnificent  fighter  and  lucid 
writer,  Blaise  de  Monluc,  marechal  de 
France :  "  Que  je  me  trouve,  en  voyant 
les  ennemis,  en  telle  peur  que  je  sentois  le 
cceur  et  les  membres  s'affoiblir  et  trem 
bler.  Puis,  ayant  dit  mes  petites  prieres 
latines,  je  sentois  tout-a-coup  venir  un 
chaleur  au  cceur  et  aux  membres." 
82 


Christianity  and  War 

"Petites  prices  latines  !"  A  monkish 
patter.  And  this  was  a  man  belonging  to 
the  "  educated  classes,"  and  a  citizen  of 
the  world.  Sully,  in  his  memoirs,  tells  us 
that,  at  the  siege  of  Montmelian,  a  can 
non-shot  struck  the  ground  close  to  the 
spot  where  he  and  the  king  were  stand 
ing,  showering  upon  them  earth  and  lit 
tle  flint  stones  ;  whereupon  Henry  swiftly 
and  unconsciously  made  the  sign  of  the 
cross.  "  Now  I  know,"  said  the  delighted 
Sully,  —  himself  an  unswerving  Protest 
ant,  —  "  now  I  know  that  you  are  a  good 
Catholic." 

We  must  always  reckon  with  human 
ity,  unless,  indeed,  we  are  orators,  living 
in  a  world  of  words,  and  marshalling 
unconquerable  theories  against  uncon- 
quered  facts.  The  French  priest  at  Sois- 
sons  who  distributed  to  the  Turcos  little 
medals  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  may  not 
have  been  an  advanced  thinker,  but  he 
displayed  a  pleasant  acquaintance  with 
mankind.  There  was  no  time  to  explain 

83 


Counter-Currents 

to  these  unbelievers  the  peculiar  efficacy 
of  the  medals ;  for  that  he  trusted  to  Our 
Lady ;  but  their  presentation  was  a  link 
between  the  Catholic  soldier  and  the 
Moslem,  who  were  fighting  side  by  side 
for  France.  Perhaps  this  priest  remem 
bered  that  close  at  hand,  in  the  hamlet 
of  Saint-Medard,  lie  the  relics  of  Saint 
Sebastian,  Christian  gentleman  and  mar 
tyr,  who  was  an  officer  in  the  imperial 
bodyguard  of  Diocletian,  rendering  to 
Caesar  the  service  that  was  Caesar's,  until 
the  hour  came  for  him  to  render  to  God 
the  life  that  was  always  God's. 

The  wave  of  religious  emotion  which 
sweeps  over  a  nation  warring  for  its  life 
is  not  the  mere  expression  of  that  na 
tion's  sharpened  needs ;  it  is  not  only  a 
cry  for  help  where  help  is  sorely  needed. 
It  is  part  of  man's  responsiveness  to  the 
call  of  duty,  his  sense  of  self-sacrifice  in 
giving  his  body  to  death  in  order  that 
his  country  may  live.  "  Religion,"  says 
Mr.  Stephen  Graham,  "is  never  shaken 
84 


Christianity  and  War 

down  by  war.  The  intellectual  dominance 
is  shaken  and  falls ;  the  spiritual  powers 
are  allowed  to  take  possession  of  men's 
beings."  That  a  truth  so  simple  and  so 
often  illustrated  should  fail  to  be  under 
stood,  proves  the  torpor  of  materialism. 
A  sad-minded  American  writer,  com 
menting  on  the  destruction  of  the  Cathe 
dral  of  Rheims,  made  the  amazing  dis 
covery  that  the  sorrow  and  indignation 
evoked  by  this  national  crime  showed 
an  utter  collapse  of  Christianity.  Every 
one,  he  said,  bewailed  the  loss  to  the 
world.  No  one  bewailed  the  loss  to  reli 
gion.  Therefore  faith  lay  dead. 

That  religion  can  lose  nothing  by  the 
destruction  of  her  monuments  is  the  sol 
ace  of  Christian  souls.  Her  churches  lie 
in  crumbling  ruins.  Ypres,  Pervyse,  Sois- 
sons,  Revigny,  Souain,  Maurupt,  fea- 
vigny.  Everywhere  stand  the  shattered 
walls  of  what  was  once  a  church,  with 
here  and  there  an  altar  burned  or  hacked, 
and  a  mutilated  crucifix.  But  the  faith 
85 


Counter-Currents 

that  built  these  churches  is  as  unassail 
able  as  the  souls  of  the  men  who  died 
for  them.  There  are  things  beyond  the 
reach  of  "  high  explosives,"  and  it  is  not 
for  them  we  grieve. 

It  is  a  common  saying  that  the  New 
Testament  affords  no  vindication  of  war, 
which  is  natural  enough,  not  being 
penned  as  a  manual  for  nations.  But 
Catholic  theology,  having  been  called 
on  very  early  to  pronounce  judgment 
upon  this  recurrent  incident  of  life,  has 
defined  with  absolute  exactitude  what, 
in  the  eyes  of  the  Church,  justifies,  and 
what  necessitates  war.  From  a  mass  of 
minute  detail,  —  laws  laid  down  by  Saint 
Thomas  Aquinas  and  other  doctors  of 
the  Church,  —  I  venture  to  quote  two 
salient  points,  the  first  dealing  with  the 
nature  of  a  right,  the  second  with  the 
nature  of  a  title. 

"Every  perfect  right,  that  is,  every 
right  involving  in  others  an  obligation 
in  justice  of  deference  thereto,  if  it  is  to 
86 


Christianity  and  War 

be  an  efficacious,  and  not  an  illusory 
power,  carries  with  it  as  a  last  appeal 
the  subsidiary  right  of  coercion.  A  per 
fect  right,  then,  implies  the  right  of  phys 
ical  force  to  defend  itself  against  infringe 
ment,  to  recover  the  subject-matter  of 
right  unjustly  withheld,  or  to  exact  its 
equivalent,  and  to  inflict  damage  in  the 
exercise  of  this  coercion,  wherever  coer 
cion  cannot  be  exercised  without  such 
damage." 

"  The  primary  title  of  a  state  to  go  to 
war  is,  first,  the  fact  that  the  state's  rights 
are  menaced  by  foreign  aggression  not 
otherwise  to  be  prevented  than  by  war ; 
second,  the  fact  of  actual  violation  of 
right  not  otherwise  reparable ;  third,  the 
need  of  punishing  the  threatening  or  in 
vading  power,  for  the  security  of  the 
future.  From  the  nature  of  the  proved 
right,  those  three  facts  are  necessarily 
just  titles,  and  the  state  whose  rights  are 
in  jeopardy  is  itself  the  judge  thereof." 

I  am  aware  that  theology  is  not  pop- 
87 


Counter-Currents 

ular,  save  with  theologians ;  but  after 
reading  Treitschke  and  Bernhardi  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  addresses  deliv 
ered  at  "peace  demonstrations"  on  the 
other,  it  is  inexpressibly  refreshing  to  fol 
low  straight  thought  instead  of  crooked 
thought,  or  words  that  hold  no  thought 
at  all.  I  am  also  aware  that  Catholic 
wars  have  not  always  been  waged  along 
the  lines  laid  down  by  Catholic  theology  ; 
but  this  is  beside  the  point.  The  Mosaic 
law  was  not  the  less  binding  upon  the 
Jews  because  they  were  always  breaking 
it.  Nor  are  we  prepared  to  say  that  they 
would  have  been  as  sound  morally  with 
out  a  law  so  constantly  infringed.  It  is 
well  to  know  that,  even  in  the  spirit, 
there  is  such  a  thing  as  justice  and  ad 
mitted  right. 

To  prate  about  the  wickedness  of  war 
without  drawing  a  clear  line  of  demarca 
tion  between  aggressive  and  defensive 
warfare,  between  violating  a  treaty  and 
upholding  it,  is  to  lose  our  mental  bal- 
88 


Christianity  and  War 

ance,  to  substitute  sentiment  for  truth. 
The  very  wrongness  of  the  one  implies 
logically  the  Tightness  of  the  other.  And 
whatever  is  morally  right  is  in  accord 
with  Christianity.  To  speak  loosely  of 
war  as  unchristian  is  to  ignore  not  only 
the  Christian  right,  but  the  Christian 
duty,  which  rests  with  every  nation  and 
with  every  man  to  protect  that  of  which 
nation  and  man  are  lawful  protectors. 
Even  aggressive  warfare  is  not  necessa 
rily  a  denial  of  the  Christianity  it  affronts. 
Crooked  thinking  comes  naturally  to 
men,  and  the  power  of  self-deception  is 
without  bounds.  God  is  not  deceived ; 
but  the  instinctive  desire  of  the  creature 
to  hoodwink  the  Creator,  to  induce  Him 
—  for  a  consideration  —  to  compound  a 
felony,  is  revealed  in  every  page  of  his 
tory,  and  under  every  aspect  of  civiliza 
tion.  The  necessity  which  man  has  al 
ways  felt  of  being  on  speaking  terms 
with  his  own  conscience,  built  churches 
and  abbeys  in  the  days  of  faith,  and  en- 


Counter-Currents 

dows  educational  institutions  in  this  day 
of  enlightenment ;  but  it  very  imper 
fectly  controlled,  or  controls,  the  actions 
of  men  or  of  nations.  If  our  confidence 
in  the  future  were  not  based  upon  igno 
rance  of  the  past,  we  should  better  un 
derstand,  and  more  courageously  face, 
the  harsh  realities  of  life. 

Two  lessons  taught  by  the  war  are 
easily  learned.  There  is  no  safety  in  talk, 
and  there  is  no  assurance  that  the  world's 
heritage  of  beauty,  its  triumphs  of  art 
and  of  architecture,  will  descend  to  our 
children  and  our  grandchildren.  We 
never  reckoned  on  this  loss  of  our  com 
mon  inheritance.  We  never  thought  that 
the  gracious  gifts  made  by  the  far  past 
to  the  dim  future  could  be  so  speedily 
destroyed,  and  that  a  single  day  would 
suffice  to  impoverish  all  coming  genera 
tions.  What  can  the  pedantry,  the  "  cul 
ture,"  of  the  twentieth  century  give  to 
compensate  us  for  the  loss  of  Rheims 
Cathedral  ?  The  deficit  is  too  heavy  to 
90 


Christianity  and  War 

be  counted.  Not  France  alone,  but  the 
civilized  world,  has  been  robbed  beyond 
measure  and  beyond  retrievement  Life 
is  less  good  to  all  of  us,  and  will  be  less 
good  to  those  who  come  after  us,  be 
cause  this  great  sacrilege  has  been  com 
mitted.  As  for  culture,  —  the  careful  de 
struction  of  the  University  of  Louvain 
proves  once  and  forever  that  scholar 
ship  is  no  more  sacred  than  art  or  than 
religion,  when  the  tide  of  invasion  breaks 
upon  a  doomed  and  helpless  land. 

This  affords  food  for  thought.  Italy, 
for  example,  is  the  treasure-house  of  the 
world.  She  is  the  guardian  of  the  beauty 
she  created,  and  to  her  shrine  goes  all 
mankind  in  pilgrimage.  How  long  would 
her  cathedrals,  her  palaces,  her  galleries, 
survive  assault  ?  What  would  be  left  of 
Venice  after  a  week's  bombardment? 
What  of  Florence,  or  of  Rome  ?  There  is 
no  such  thing  as  safety  in  war.  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  safety  in  neutrality. 
Italy  has  more  to  lose  than  all  the  other 


Counter-Currents 

nations  of  Europe,  and  is  there  one  of 
us  who  would  not  be  a  partner  in  her 
loss? 

And  the  United  States  ?  "  God's  own 
land  "  ?  Are  we  forever  secure  ?  True  we 
have  little  to  fear  in  the  destruction  of 
our  public  monuments,  which  are  rather 
like  the  public  monuments  of  Prussia, 
the  ornate  edifices  and  ramping  statues 
of  Hamburg  and  Berlin.  It  might  be  a 
pious  duty  to  let  them  go.  But  we  have 
homes  which  are  as  precious  to  us  as 
were  once  the  devastated  homes  of  Bel 
gium  to  happy  men  and  women ;  and 
we  confide  their  safety  to  treaties,  to 
scraps  of  paper,  like  the  one  which  made 
Belgium  inviolate.  If  we  are  in  search  of 
life's  ironies,  let  us  note  that  a  Roman 
Catholic  Peace  Conference  was  to  have 
been  convened  in  Liege,  the  very  month 
that  Germany  struck  her  blow.  A  fort 
night's  delay,  and  delegates  might  have 
been  making  speeches  on  the  concord 
of  nations,  while  the  streets  of  Aerschot 
92 


Christianity  and  War 

ran   blood,  and  Wespelaer  was   looted 
and  burned. 

Yet  so  deep-rooted  is  sentiment  in  our 
souls,  so  averse  are  we  to  facing  facts, 
that  to-day  a  "  peace  meeting- "  will  pack 
a  convention  hall  in  any  town  of  any 
state  in  the  Union.  We  are  as  pleased 
to  hear  that  "the  brotherhood  of  man  is 
the  only  basis  for  enduring  peace  among 
the  nations  "  as  if  this  shadowy  brother 
hood  had  taken  form  and  substance.  We 
listen  with  undiminished  trustfulness  to 
Mr.  Bryan's  oft-repeated  plans  for  end 
ing  the  war  by  remonstrating  soberly 
with  the  warriors.  We  see  hope  in  confer 
ences,  in  speeches,  in  telegrams  to  Wash 
ington,  in  appeals  "  from  the  mothers  of 
the  nation."  How  many  months  have 
passed  since  Mr.  La  Follette  evoked  our 
enthusiastic  response  to  these  well-timed, 
well-balanced  words  ?  "  The  accumulated 
and  increasing  horrors  of  the  European 
wars  are  creating  a  great  tidal  wave  of 
public  opinion  that  sweeps  aside  all  spe- 
93 


Counter-Currents 

cious  reasoning,  and  admits  of  but  one 
simple,  common-sense,  humane  conclu 
sion,  —  a  demand  for  peace  and  disarma 
ment  among  civilized  nations." 

To  this  we  all  cried  Amen !  But  as 
there  was  nobody  to  bell  the  cat,  the 
war  went  bloodily  on.  The  question  who 
was  to  "  demand  "  peace,  and  of  whom 
it  was  to  be  demanded,  was  one  which 
Mr.  La  Follette  could  not,  or  at  least 
did  not,  answer  "  Public  opinion  "  has 
a  weighty  sound.  All  our  lives  we  have 
pinned  our  faith  to  this  bodiless  thing, 
and  it  has  failed  us  in  our  need.  Why, 
if  it  can  work  miracles  in  the  future, 
should  it  have  been  so  helpless  in  these 
two  sad  years  ?  The  Hague  Conference 
of  1907  laid  down  definite  rules  of  war 
fare,  —  rules  to  which  the  nations  of  Eu 
rope  subscribed  with  cheerful  unanimity. 
They  forbade  pillage,  the  levying  of  in 
demnities,  the  seizure  of  funds  belonging 
to  local  authorities,  collective  penalties 
for  individual  acts,  the  conveying  of 
94 


Christianity  and  War 

troops  or  munitions  across  the  territory 
of  a  neutral  power,  and  all  terrorization 
of  a  country  by  harshness  to  its  civilian 
population.  The  object  of  these  rules, 
every  one  of  which  has  been  broken  in 
Belgium,  was  to  keep  war  within  the 
limits  set  by  what  Mr.  Henry  James 
calls  the  "  high  decency "  of  Christian 
civilization.  Public  opinion  has  been  as 
powerless  to  enforce  the  least  of  these 
rules  as  it  has  been  powerless  to  prevent 
the  sinking  of  unarmed  merchant  ships, 
the  drowning  of  men,  women  and  chil 
dren  belonging  to  neutral  nations.  How 
can  we  hope  that  a  force  so  feeble  to 
day  will  control  the  world  to-morrow? 

If  the  Allies  emerge  triumphantly  from 
the  war,  and  England  demands  the  re 
duction  of  armaments,  then  this  good 
result  will  have  been  gained  by  desper 
ate  fighting,  not  by  noble  sentiments. 
We,  whose  sentiments  have  been  of  the 
noblest,  shall  have  had  no  real  share  in 
the  work.  If  Germany  conquers,  and 
95 


Counter-Currents 

stands  ^unassailable,  a  great  military 
world-power,  fired  with  a  sense  of  her 
exalted  destiny,  rich  with  the  spoils  of 
Europe,  and  holding  in  her  mailed  hands 
the  power  to  enforce  her  will,  is  it  at  all 
likely  that  our  excellent  arguments  will 
prevail  upon  her  to  reverse  her  policy, 
and  enfeeble  herself  for  our  safety?  A 
successful  aggressive  warfare  does  not 
pave  the  way  to  a  lasting  and  honour 
able  peace.  This  is  one  of  the  truths  we 
may  learn,  if  we  will,  from  history. 

For  years  we  have  chosen  to  believe 
that  arbitration  would  ensure  for  the 
world  a  maximum  of  comfort  at  a  mini 
mum  of  cost,  and  that  the  religion  of 
humanity  would  achieve  what  the  re 
ligion  of  Christ  has  never  achieved, — 
the  mythical  brotherhood  of  man.  From 
this  dream  we  have  been  rudely  awak 
ened  ;  but,  being  awake,  let  us  at  least 
recognize  and  respect  that  simple  and 
great  quality  which  makes  every  man 
the  defender  of  his  home,  the  guardian 
96 


Christianity  and  War 

of  his  rights,  the  avenger  of  his  shame 
ful  wrongs. 

We,  too,  have  fought  bravely  in  our 
day.  We,  too,  have  known  what  it  is  to 
do  all  that  man  can  do,  and  to  bear  all 
that  man  must  bear ;  and  it  was  not  in 
the  hour  of  our  trial  that  we  talked 
about  bankrupt  Christianity.  When  Ser 
bia  made  her  choice  between  death  and 
the  uttermost  dishonour,  she  vindicated 
the  sacred  right  of  humanity.  When  Bel 
gium  with  incredible  courage  defended 
her  own  good  name  and  the  safety  of 
France,  she  stood  erect  before  God  and 
man,  and  laid  down  her  life  for  her 
friend. 


Women  and  War 

THE  only  agreeable  thing  to  be 
recorded  in  connection  with 
Europe's  sudden  and  disastrous 
war  is  the  fact  that  people  stopped  talk 
ing  about  women,  and  began  to  talk 
about  men.  For  the  past  decade,  women 
have  persistently  occupied  the  front  of 
the  stage,  and  men  have  seemed  a  neg 
ligible  factor ;  useful  in  their  imperfect 
way,  but  hopelessly  unproblematic.  Then 
Austria  delivered  her  ultimatum,  Ger 
many  marched  her  armies  across  a 
peaceful  earth,  and  men,  plain  men,  be 
came  supremely  important,  as  defenders 
of  their  imperilled  homes.  In  this  swift 
return  to  primitive  conditions,  primitive 
qualities  reasserted  their  value.  France, 
Belgium,  England  called  to  their  sons 
for  succour,  and  the  arms  of  these  men 
98 


Women  and  War 

were   strengthened   because    they    had 
women  to  protect. 

A  casual  study  of  newspapers  before 
and  after  the  proclamation  of  war  is 
profoundly  instructive.  Even  the  illus 
trated  papers  and  periodicals  tell  their 
tale,  and  spare  us  the  printed  page.  Pic 
tures  of  recruits  in  place  of  club-women. 
Pictures  of  camps  in  place  of  conven 
tion  halls.  Pictures  of  Red  Cross  nurses 
bending  over  hospital  beds,  in  place  of 
militants  raiding  Buckingham  Palace. 
Pictures  of  peaceful  ladies  sewing  and 
knitting  for  soldiers,  in  place  of  formi 
dable  committees  baiting  Mr.  Wilson, 
or  pursuing  the  more  elusive  Mr.  As- 
quith.  Pictures  of  pitying  young  girls 
handing  cups  of  broth  and  the  ever-wel 
come  cigarettes  to  weary  volunteers,  in 
place  of  suffragists  haranguing  the  mob 
of  Hyde  Park.  Never  was  there  such  a 
noteworthy  illustration  of  Scott's  archaic 
line,  — 

"  0  woman!  in  our  hours  of  ease." 
99 


Counter-Currents 

Never  did  the  simplicities  of  life  so  tri 
umphantly  efface  its  complexities. 

As  the  war  deepened,  and  the  tale  of 
its  devastations  and  brutalities  robbed 
even  the  saddened  onlooker  of  all  glad 
ness  in  life,  it  was  natural  that  women, 
while  faithful  to  their  r61e  of  minister 
ing  angels,  should  mingle  blame  with 
pity.  It  was  also  natural,  though  less 
pardonable,  that  their  censure  should 
be  of  that  vague  order  which  holds 
everybody  responsible  for  what  some 
body  has  done.  Perhaps  it  was  even 
natural  that,  confident  in  their  own  un 
proved  wisdom  and  untried  efficiency, 
they  should  believe  and  say  that,  had 
women  shared  the  control  of  civilized 
governments,  the  world  would  now  be 
at  peace. 

Here  we  enter  the  realms  of  pure  con 
jecture, —  realms  in  which  everything 
can  be  asserted  and  denied,  nothing 
proved  or  disproved.  It  may  be  that 
when  women  become  voters,  legislators, 
100 


Women  and  War 

and  officeholders,  they  will  do  the  better 
work  for  this  profound  and  touching  be 
lief  in  their  own  perfectibility.  Or  it  may 
be  that  a  perilous  self-confidence  will  — 
until  corrected  by  experience  —  lead 
them  astray.  These  speculations  would 
be  of  small  concern,  were  it  not  that  the 
claim  to  moral  superiority,  which  women 
advance  without  a  blush,  disposes  many 
of  them  to  ignore  the  hard  conditions 
under  which  men  struggle,  and  fail,  and 
struggle  again.  It  narrows  their  outlook, 
confuses  their  judgment,  and  cheapens 
their  point  of  view. 

When  a  prominent  American  feminist 
said  smartly  that  war  is  the  hysteria  of 
men,  she  betrayed  that  lamentable  lack 
of  perspective  which  ignorance  can  only 
partly  excuse.  The  heartless  shallowness 
of  such  a  speech  commended  it  to  many 
hearers ;  but  of  all  generalizations  it  is 
the  least  legitimate.  There  was  as  little 
hysteria  in  the  well-ordered,  deeply  laid 
plans  of  Germany  as  there  was  in  the 
101 


Counter-Currents 

heroic  defence  of  France  and  Belgium, 
or  in  the  slow  awakening  of  England, 
who  took  a  deal  of  rousing  from  her 
sleep.  "  Most  women,"  says  Mr.  Martin 
Chaloner,  "  regard  politics  as  a  kind  of 
foolishness  that  men  play  at."  But  the 
campaign  in  Belgium  is  not  to  be  classed 
as  "  foolishness  "  or  "  hysteria."  The 
attack  was  a  crime  past  all  forgiveness ; 
the  defence  was  one  of  flawless  valour. 
If  it  be  hysterical  to  prize  home  and 
country  more  than  life,  then  we  must  re 
write  that  temperate  old  axiom  which 
has  swayed  men's  souls  for  centuries : 
"  Dulce  et  decorum  est  pro  patria  mori." 
Mrs.  Pethick  Lawrence,  an  English 
woman  and  an  advanced  feminist,  has 
devoted  many  busy  months  to  persuad 
ing  American  women  that  the  incapacity 
of  men  to  rule  the  world  is  abundantly 
proven  by  the  present  state  of  Europe, 
and  that  the  downfall  of  all  that  civiliza 
tion  has  held  dear  is  due  to  their  arrogant 
rejection  of  feminine  advice.  Women, 
102 


Women  and  War 

she  asserts,  are  the  "  natural  custodians 
of  the  human  race  "  ;  they  have  for  years 
"  sought  to  find  entrance  into  the  coun 
cils  of  the  human  commonwealth,  in 
order  that  they  might  there  represent  the 
supreme  issue  of  race-preservation  and 
development"  ;  now  at  last  their  hands 
must  be  free  "  to  build  up  a  surer  and 
safer  structure  of  humanity." 

"  To-day  it  is  for  men  to  stand  down, 
and  for  the  women  whom  they  have  be 
littled  to  take  the  seat  of  judgment.  No 
picture,  however  overdrawn,  of  woman's 
ignorance,  error,  or  folly  could  exceed  in 
fantastic  yet  tragic  horror  the  spectacle 
which  male  governments  are  furnishing 
history  to-day.  The  foundation  of  the 
structure  of  civilization  which  they  have 
erected  in  Europe  has  proved  rotten. 
The  edifice,  seemingly  so  secure,  has 
collapsed.  The  failure  of  male  statecraft 
in  Europe  is  complete." 

This  is  a  bitter  indictment,  and  one  not 
to  be  lightly  disregarded.  But  its  terms 
103 


Counter-Currents 

are  too  general  to  support  an  argument. 
What  could  the  women  of  Belgium  and 
the  women  of  France  have  done  to  save 
their  countries  from  invasion  ?  When  we 
are  told  that "  the  woman-movement  and 
war  cannot  flourish  together,"  and  that 
we  should  never  have  witnessed  this 
"campaign  of  race-suicide,"  had  women 
been  justly  represented,  we  have  no  an 
swer  to  make,  because  a  denial  would  be 
as  hypothetical  as  is  the  assertion.  But 
when  Mrs.  Lawrence  ventures  to  call  the 
war  "a  great  dog-fight,"  caused  by  an 
"  obsession  of  materialism,"  we  recognize 
a  smallness  of  vision  and  coarseness  of 
speech  incompatible  with  clear  thinking, 
or  with  that  distinction  of  mind  which 
commands  attention  and  respect.  If  this 
militant  pacifist  sees  in  the  conduct  of 
England  and  in  the  conduct  of  France 
only  the  greed  of  two  dogs,  squabbling 
with  Germany  over  a  bone,  which  appar 
ently  belongs  to  none  of  them,  we  can 
but  hope  she  is  not  expressing  the  views, 
104 


Women  and  War 

or  illustrating  the  knowledge  of  her  coun 
trywomen. 

Great  events,  however  lamentable,  must 
be  looked  at  greatly.  There  is  much  to 
be  commended  in  the  peace  platform  en 
dorsed  by  the  suffragists  in  Washington, 
January,  1915.  There  is  everything  to  be 
hoped  for  in  the  sane  and  just  settlement 
of  national  disputes  by  an  international 
tribunal,  which  might  advantageously  in 
clude  women  representatives.  The  deci 
sions  of  such  a  tribunal  must,  however,  be 
supported  by  something  stronger  than 
sentiment,  which  has  proved  singularly 
inefficacious  in  the  past.  It  is  well  that 
men  and  women  should  work  hand  in 
hand  for  peace  and  for  prosperity  ;  but  it 
is  not  well  that  women  should  invite  them 
selves  to  "  take  the  seat  of  judgment"  ; 
or  that  they  should  be  complacently  sure 
that  their  arguments  would  have  pre 
vailed,  when  similar  arguments,  ad 
vanced  by  men,  have  been  unheeded. 

What,  after  all,  is  the  line  of  reasoning 
105 


Counter-Currents 

which  Mrs.  Lawrence  sincerely  believes 
would  have  swayed  the  councils  of  the 
nations  ?  After  assuring  us  that "  the  wo 
man's  movement  is  spiritual  and  reli 
gious,  founded  on  the  belief  that  human 
life  is  sacred,"  she  continues  :  "  As  moth 
ers,  women  would  have  impressed  upon 
men  the  cost  of  human  replenishment ; 
as  chancellors  of  the  family  exchequer, 
their  influence  would  have  been  felt  in 
forcing  legislatures  to  recognize  the  di 
rect  relation  between  the  plenteousness 
of  the  food-supply,  endangered  and  re 
stricted  by  war,  and  the  health  and  growth 
of  the  rising  generation." 

If  this  is  not  "  an  obsession  of  material 
ism,"  where  shall  we  look  for  such  a  qual 
ity?  The  world  has  not  waited  until  now 
to  learn  the  cost  of  war.  It  was  one  of  the 
stock  arguments  urged  upon  every  con 
ference  at  The  Hague.  It  was  one  of  the 
indubitable  facts  upon  which  we  all  relied 
to  keep  the  nations  at  peace.  And  it  has 
failed  us,  as  materialism  always  does  fail 
1 06 


Women  and  War 

us  in  every  great  national  crisis.  Germany 
knows  the  cost  of  war,  but  she  is  out  for 
conquest,  and  the  spoils  of  conquest.  She 
recalls  with  pleasure  the  two  hundred 
million  pounds  extorted  from  France  in 
1871,  she  hopes  this  time  to  "  bleed  her 
white  "  (Bismarck's  cruel  phrase  is  a  com 
pendium  of  Prussian  policy),  she  dangles 
before  German  eyes  the  promise  of  in 
demnities  which  will  make  good  all  losses, 
and  she  enjoys  a  foretaste  of  bliss  by  levy 
ing  ruinous  fines  upon  French  and  Flem 
ish  towns  which  have  tasted  the  utmost 
bitterness  of  defeat.  France  knows  the 
cost  of  war,  and  is  ill  prepared  to  pay  it ; 
but  her  alternative  is  yielding  her  soil, 
and  all  she  holds  sacred  and  dear,  to  a 
ruthless  invader.  Even  a  nation  of  Quak 
ers,  or,  we  hope,  a  nation  with  women  in 
"the  seat  of  judgment,"  would  reject  sub 
mission  on  such  terms.  England  knows 
the  cost  of  war,  but  she  also  knows  the 
cost  of  German  supremacy.  She  is  at  last 
aware  that  her  national  life  is  at  stake. 
107 


Counter-Currents 

She  must  fight  to  preserve  it,  or  sink  into 
insignificance,  —  her  glorious  past  as 
much  a  thing  of  memory  as  is  the  past 
of  Rome. 

For  all  these  reasons  the  nations  are 
spending  their  money  on  armaments, 
and  spilling  their  blood  on  the  battlefield. 
The  sacredness  of  life  is  being  violated ; 
but  is  it  life,  or  is  it  the  moral  worth  of 
life,  which  we  hold  sacred  ?  Life  is  a  thing 
given  us  for  a  few  years.  Its  only  value 
lies  in  the  use  we  make  of  it.  Lose  it  we 
must,  and  very  soon.  But  honour  and 
duty  are  for  all  time.  Why  do  we  see  a 
" soldiers'  monument"  in  nearly  every 
town  of  every  state  which  fought  for  the 
Union?  Not  because  these  men  lived, 
but  because  they  died.  What  must  it  have 
cost  Mr.  Lincoln,  whose  heart  was  <  big 
enough  for  much  suffering,  to  order  from 
an  exhausted  country  the  last  draft  of  half 
a  million  men !  And  why  does  an  ingeni 
ous  writer,  like  Mr.  G.  Lowes  Dickinson, 
cudgel  his  brain  to  find  abstract  causes 
108 


Women  and  War 

for  war  ?  The  concrete  causes  which  have 
come  within  the  personal  experiences  of 
most  of  us  will  answer  our  rational  ques 
tionings. 

If  it  were  possible  that  the  women  of 
all  nations  could  ever  be  brought  to  think 
and  feel  alike,  — a  miracle  of  unity  never 
vouchsafed  to  men,  —  then  they  might 
run  the  world  harmoniously.  If,  for  ex 
ample,  a  Frau  Professor  Treitschke,  a 
Frau  General  von  Bernhardi,  and  the 
more  august  spouse  of  the  Chancellor 
Bethmann-Hollweg  had  succeeded  in 
talking  down  their  martial  husbands,  and 
persuading  Germany  that  her  duty  was 
to  breed  in  peace  within  her  own  frontier, 
then  a  Madame  Poincare,  a  Madame 
Joffre,  a  Mrs.  Asquith,  a  Lady  Kitchener 
would  have  had  no  difficulty  in  holding 
back  France  and  England  from  war.  If 
the  Kaiserin  were  an  autocratic  "  peace- 
lady,"  ruling  her  "war-lord"  into  sub 
mission,  then  the  Queen  of  England  and 
the  Queen  of  Belgium  might  be  drinking 
109 


Counter-Currents 

tea  with  her  to-day.  But  unless  the  good 
Teuton  women  had  kept  their  men  at 
home,  how  could  the  good  French  and 
Belgian  women  have  warded  off  attack  ? 
And  would  the  good  British  women  have 
said,  "  We  are  safe  for  a  little  while.  Let 
us  stand  cringing  by,  and  see  injustice 
done"? 

The  "  Woman's  Journal"  wrote  a  year 
ago  to  a  number  of  more  or  less  distin 
guished  people,  and  asked  them  if  they 
thought  that  woman  suffrage  would  abol 
ish,  or  would  lessen  war.  As  none  of  these 
more  or  less  distinguished  people  had  any 
data  upon  which  to  build  an  opinion,  their 
answers  were  interesting,  only  as  express 
ing  personal  views  of  a  singularly  un* 
trammelled  order.  There  were  those  who 
believed  that  the  Spartan  mother  stood 
for  an  undying  type,  and  there  were  those 
who  believed  that  she  had  been  finally 
and  happily  superseded.  Miss  Jane  Ad- 
dams  wrote  that  more  women  than  men 
"  recognize  the  folly  and  wickedness  of 
no 


Women  and  War 

war,"  —  an  easy  generalization.  Dr.  Ste 
phen  S.  Wise,  an  unblinking  enthusiast, 
held  that  one  great  gain  will  follow  the 
tragic  conditions  of  to-day.  We  shall  see 
the  end  of  "man-made  government." 
"World  peace"  and  "world  welfare" 
will  come  with  woman's  rule.  Miss  Mary 
Johnston  was  of  the  opinion  that  "war 
has  still  a  fascination  for  most  men,"  but 
that  few  women  feel  its  seduction. 

Miss  Johnston's  view  is  the  only  one 
which  invites  comment,  because  it  is 
shared  by  a  great  many  women  who  have 
not  her  excuse.  "The  Long  Roll"  and 
"  Cease  Firing"  are  pretty  grim  pictures 
of  battle,  but  there  is  a  heroic  quality 
about  both  books;  while  in  that  jolly, 
chivalrous,  piratical  romance,  "  To  Have 
and  to  Hold,"  combat  follows  combat 
with  dizzy  speed  and  splendour.  Miss 
Johnston's  heroes  take  so  kindly  to  fight 
ing  that  she  naturally  believes  in  the  im 
pelling  power  of  war;  but,  outside  the 
covers  of  a  historical  novel,  the  martial 
in 


Counter-Currents 

instinct  is  not  a  common  one.  It  exists, 
and  it  crops  up  where  we  least  expect  to 
find  it,  —  in  professors  of  political  econ 
omy,  in  doctors  who  have  spent  their 
existence  keeping  people  alive,  and  in 
clergymen  who  preach  the  religion  of  the 
meek.  But  it  is  too  rare  to  be  a  control 
ling  force,  and  it  had  little  or  no  place  in 
the  hearts  of  the  thousands  of  men  who 
were  marched  to  their  deaths  on  the 
battlefields  of  Poland  and  Flanders. 

It  was  not  the  fascination  of  war  that 
brought  the  Tyrolean  and  Bavarian 
peasants  down  from  their  mountain 
farms.  What  did  these  men  know  or 
care  about  Belgrade,  or  Prussia's  wide 
ambitions?  What  to  them  was  "the 
fate-appointed  world-task  of  Germany, 
under  the  sacred  dynasty  of  the  Ho- 
henzollern "  ?  They  were  summoned, 
and  they  obeyed  the  summons.  If  the 
women  who  talk  so  glibly  about  the 
pleasure  men  take  in  fighting  had  seen 
these  conscripts  saying  good-bye  to 
112 


Women  and  War 

their  wives  and  children,  and  marching 
off,  grave,  silent,  sad,  they  might  revise 
their  notions  of  military  enthusiasm. 
Madame  Rosika  Schwimmer  of  Buda 
pest  said  before  a  convention  in  Nash 
ville  that,  had  her  countrywomen  been 
represented  in  the  government,  there 
would  have  been  no  war.  The  remark 
was  received  with  an  enthusiasm  which 
indicates  some  ignorance  concerning 
Hungary's  position  and  power.  But  did 
Madame  Schwimmer' s  audience  believe 
that  all  her  countrywomen  hated  war, 
and  all  her  countrymen  desired  it  ?  And 
how  many  of  these  countrymen,  did 
Nashville  think,  had  any  choice  in  the 
matter  ? 

When  we  turn  from  the  attack  to 
the  defence,  from  the  assailants  to  the 
assailed,  we  find  as  little  room  for  "  fas 
cination"  as  for  peace.  The  war  was 
carried  with  incredible  vigour  and  speed 
to  the  thresholds  of  French  and  Belgian 
homes.  It  was  not  precisely  a  tourna- 


Counter-Currents 

ment,  in  which  battle-loving  knights 
rode  prancing  and  curveting  to  the  fray. 
It  was  the  older  and  simpler  story  of  a 
land  swept  by  invasion,  and  of  men 
fighting  and  dying  for  all  that  belonged 
to  them  on  earth.  Do  the  American 
women  who  prate  about  the  wrong  done 
to  womanhood  by  war  ever  reflect  that 
it  is  for  wife  and  child,  as  well  as  for 
home  and  country,  that  men  are  bound 
to  die  ?  What  history  do  they  read  which 
does  not  teach  them  this  truth,  which 
does  not  tell  it  over  and  over  again,  to 
interpret  the  story  of  the  nations  ? 

In  the  town  of  Lexington,  Massachu 
setts,  where  was  shed  the  first  blood 
spilled  in  the  Revolution,  there  slept 
peacefully  on  the  morning  of  April  19, 
I775>  a  young  man  named  Jonathan 
Harrington.  To  him  in  the  early  dawn 
came  his  widowed  mother,  who  aroused 
him,  saying,  "  Jonathan,  Jonathan,  wake 
up  1  The  Regulars  are  coming,  and 
something  must  be  done."  The  some- 
114 


Women  and  War 

thing  to  be  done  was  plain  to  this  young 
American,  who  had  never  fought,  nor 
seen  fighting,  in  his  life.  He  rose,  dressed, 
took  his  musket,  joined  the  little  group 
of  townsmen  on  the  Common,  and  fell 
before  the  first  volley  fired  by  the  British 
soldiers.  His  wife  (he  had  been  married 
less  than  a  year)  ran  to  the  door.  He 
crawled  across  the  Common,  bleeding 
heavily,  and  died  on  his  threshold  at  her 
feet. 

It  is  a  very  simple  incident,  and  it 
holds  all  the  elements  which  make  for 
national  life.  A  cause  to  support,  a  man 
to  support  it,  a  woman  to  call  for  help 
when  the  supreme  moment  comes.  Some 
thing  like  it  must  have  happened  over 
and  over  again  in  the  blood-soaked  land 
of  Belgium.  Yet  we  find  women  to-day 
talking  and  writing  as  if  none  of  their 
sex  had  anything  at  stake  in  the  defence 
of  their  violated  homes,  as  if  they  had  no 
sacred  rights  bound  up  with  the  sacred 
rights  of  men.  The  National  American 


Counter-Currents 

Woman  Suffrage  Association  sent  an 
appeal  to  organized  suffragists  all  over 
the  world,  urging  them  to  "  arise  in  pro 
test,  and  show  war-crazed  men  that  be 
tween  the  contending  armies  there  stand 
thousands  of  women  and  children  who 
are  the  innocent  victims  of  man's  unbri 
dled  ambitions." 

There  was  no  word  in  this  appeal  to 
indicate  that  any  nobler  —  and  humbler 
—  sentiment  than  unbridled  ambition 
(which,  after  all,  is  for  the  very  few)  ani 
mates  the  soldier's  heart.  There  was  no 
distinction  drawn  between  aggressive 
and  defensive  warfare.  There  was  no 
hint  that  men  bear  their  full  share  of  the 
sufferings  caused  by  war.  The  assump 
tion  that  women  endure  all  the  pain  is 
in  accordance  with  the  assumption  that 
men  enjoy  all  the  pleasure.  To  write  as 
though  battle  were  a  game,  played  by 
men  at  the  expense  of  women,  is  child 
ish  and  irrational.  We  Americans  are 
happily  spared  the  sight  of  mangled  sol- 
116 


Women  and  War 

diers  lying  in  undreamed-of  agony  on 
the  frozen  field.  We  do  not  see  the 
ghastly  ambulance  trains  jolting  along 
with  their  load  of  broken,  tortured  men ; 
or  the  hospitals  where  these  wrecks  are 
nursed  back  to  some  poor  remnant  of 
life,  or  escape  through  the  merciful  gates 
of  death.  But  we  might  read  of  these 
things ;  we  might  visualize  them  in  mo 
ments  of  comfortable  leisure,  and  take 
shame  to  our  souls  at  the  platform  elo 
quence  which  so  readily  assumes  that 
the  sorrows  of  war  are  hidden  in  wo 
men's  hearts,  that  the  burdens  of  war  are 
laid  upon  women's  shoulders,  that  wo 
men  are  sacrificed  in  their  helplessness 
to  the  hatred  and  the  ambitions,  the 
greed  and  the  glory  of  men. 

If  by  any  chance  a  word  of  regret  is  ex 
pressed  for  the  soldier  who  dies  for  his 
country,  it  is  always  because  he  is  the 
son  of  his  mother,  or  the  husband  of  his 
wife,  or  the  father  of  his  child.  He  is 
never  permitted  an  entity  of  his  own.  It 
117 


Counter-Currents 

is  curious  that  the  same  women  who 
clamour  for  a  recognition  of  their  individ 
ual  freedom  should  assume  these  prop 
erty  rights  in  men.  Dr.  Anna  Shaw  has 
commented  sarcastically  upon  a  habit 
(one  of  many  bad  habits)  which  she  has 
observed  in  the  unregenerate  sex.  They 
speak  of  their  womenkind  in  terms  of  re 
lationship  ;  they  use  the  possessive  case. 
They  say,  "  my  wife,"  "  my  sister,"  "  my 
daughter,"  "  my  mother,"  "  my  aunt," 
instead  of  "  Jane,"  "  Susan,"  "  Mary 
Ann,"  "Mrs.  Smith,"  "  Miss  Jones."  Ap 
parently  Dr.  Shaw  does  not  hear  women 
say,  "  my  husband,"  "  my  brother,"  "  my 
son,"  "  my  father,"  "  my  uncle "  ;  or,  if 
she  does,  this  sounds  less  feudal  in  her 
ears.  Advanced  feminists  have  protested 
against  the  custom  of  "  branding  a  wo 
man  at  marriage  with  her  husband's 
name."  Even  the  convenience  of  such  an 
arrangement  fails  to  excuse  its  arro 
gance. 

Yet  we  are  bidden  to  protest  against 
118 


Women  and  War 

the  wickedness  of  all  war,  not  because 
men  die,  but  because  wives  are  widowed ; 
not  because  men  slay,  but  because  mo 
thers  are  childless ;  not  because  men  do 
evil,  or  suffer  wrong,  but  because,  in 
either  case,  women  share  the  conse 
quences.  For  the  sake  of  these  women, 
war  must  cease,  is  the  cry ;  as  though 
the  vast  majority  of  men  would  not  be 
glad  enough  to  be  rid  of  war  for  their 
own  sake.  They  do  not  covet  loss  of  in 
come  and  destruction  of  property.  They 
do  not  gladly  aspire  to  an  armless  or  leg 
less  future.  Not  one  of  them  really  wants 
a  shattered  thigh,  or  a  bullet  in  his  ab 
domen.  And,  in  addition  to  these  (per 
haps  selfish)  considerations,  we  might  do 
them  the  justice  to  remember  that  they 
are  not  destitute  of  natural  affection  for 
their  wives  and  children ;  but  that,  on 
the  contrary,  the  safeguarding  of  the  fam 
ily  is,  and  has  always  been,  a  powerful 
factor  in  war.  It  lent  a  desperate  cour 
age  to  the  Belgian  soldier  who  saw  his 
119 


Counter-Currents 

home  destroyed ;  it  nerved  the  arm  of  the 
French  soldier  who  knew  his  home  in 
peril.  The  killing  of  the  first  women  and 
children  at  Scarborough  sent  a  host  of 
tardy  volunteers  into  the  British  army. 
Such  indiscriminate  slaughter,  though 
it  represents  a  negligible  loss  to  a  na 
tion,  is  about  the  only  thing  on  earth 
which  the  least  valiant  men  cannot  stom 
ach. 

"  The  Turk,  not  squeamish  as  a  rule, 

No  special  glee  betrayed, 
And  even  Mr.  Bernard  Shaw 
Failed  to  commend  the  raid." 

The  Lusitania  children,  lying  in  pitiful 
rows  to  await  identification  in  Queens- 
town,  little  meek  and  sodden  corpses 
buffeted  out  of  comeliness  by  the  waves, 
awoke  in  the  hearts  of  the  men  who 
looked  at  them  a  passion  of  anger  and 
hate  which  life  is  too  short  to  appease. 
The  brutal  shooting  of  an  English  nurse 
was  followed  by  an  illogical  rush  of  young 
Englishmen  to  the  colours.  And  the  mere 
120 


Women  and  War 

fact  that  scores  of  writers,  commenting 
on  Edith  CavelFs  death,  harkened  back 
to  the  beheading  of  Alice  Lisle,  proves 
the  imperishable  nature  of  the  infamy 
attached  to  a  deed,  which  to  Judge  Jef 
freys,  as  to  General  Baron  von  Bissing, 
seemed  the  most  reasonable  thing  in  the 
world. 

The  outbreak  of  the  war  was  seized 
upon  as  a  strong  argument  for  diamet 
rically  opposite  views.  A  small  and 
hardy  minority  kicked  up  its  heels  and 
shouted,  "Women  cannot  fight.  Why 
should  they  control  a  land  they  are 
powerless  to  defend  ?  "  A  large  and  senti 
mental  majority  lifted  up  its  eyes  to 
Heaven,  and  answered,  "  If  women  had 
possessed  their  rights,  all  would  now  be 
smiling  and  at  peace."  And  neither  of 
these  contending  factions  took  any  trou 
ble  to  ascertain  and  understand  the  rights 
and  wrongs  of  the  conflict.  People  who 
pin  their  faith  to  a  catchword  never  feel 
the  necessity  of  understanding  anything. 

121 


Counter-Currents 

Here,  for  example,  is  a  violent  pacifist 
in  the  "  Woman's  Journal,"  who,  to  the 
oft-repeated  assertion  that  women,  when 
they  have  the  vote,  "  will  compel  gov 
ernments  to  settle  their  disputes  before 
an  international  court  of  arbitration," 
adds  this  unwarranted  statement :  "  The 
women  of  the  world  have  no  quarrel 
with  one  another.  They  do  not  care 
whether  or  not  Austria  maintains  its 
power  over  the  Balkan  States ;  whether 
or  not  France  obtains  revenge  for  the 
defeats  of  1870;  whether  Germany  or 
England  gains  supremacy  in  the  world 
market." 

This  good  lady  does  not  seem  to  know 
what  happened  in  August,  1914.  France 
did  not  proclaim  war  upon  Germany. 
Germany  proclaimed  war  upon  France. 
France  did  not  attack,  —  for  revenge,  or 
for  any  other  motive.  She  was  attacked, 
and  has  been  fighting  ever  since  with 
her  back  to  the  wall  in  defence  of  her 
own  soil. 

122 


Women  and  War 

It  is  possible  for  an  American  woman 
to  have  no  quarrel  with  any  one,  no 
knowledge  of  what  Europe  is  quarrelling 
about,  and  no  human  concern  as  to  which 
nations  win.  But  she  should  not  think, 
and  she  certainly  should  not  say,  that 
the  women  of  the  warring  lands  are 
equally  ignorant,  and  equally  uncon 
cerned.  To  the  Serbian  woman  the  free 
dom  of  Serbia  is  a  precious  thing.  The 
French  woman  cares  with  her  whole  soul 
for  the  preservation  of  France.  The  Bel 
gian  woman  can  hardly  be  indifferent  to 
the  ultimate  fate  of  Belgium.  It  is  even 
possible  that  the  English  and  German 
women  are  not  prepared  to  clasp  one 
another's  hands  and  say,  "  We  are  sis 
ters,  and  it  matters  nothing  to  us  whether 
England  or  Germany  wins."  The  pitfall 
of  the  feminist  is  the  belief  that  the  inter 
ests  of  men  and  women  can  ever  be  sev 
ered  ;  that  what  brings  suffering  to  the 
one  can  leave  the  other  unscathed. 

What  are  the  qualities  demanded  of 
123 


Counter-Currents 

women  in  every  great  national  crisis? 
First  of  all,  intelligence.  They  should 
have  some  accurate  knowledge  of  what 
has  happened,  some  clear  understand 
ing  of  the  events  they  so  glibly  discuss. 
There  are  documents  in  plenty  to  en 
lighten  them.  Those  tense  summer 
months  in  which  the  war  was  nursed  in 
secrecy,  are  now  no  longer  secret.  We 
know  where  the  bantling  was  cradled, 
we  know  what  ambitions  speeded  it  on 
its  evil  way,  and  we  have  watched  every 
step  of  its  progress.  To  condemn  all  Eu 
rope  in  terms  of  easy  reprobation,  to 
clamour  for  peace  without  recognition 
of  justice,  is  but  inconsequent  chatter. 
It  leaves  vital  issues  untouched,  and 
rational  minds  unmoved.  The  sternest 
words  uttered  since  the  beginning  of  the 
war  were  spoken  by  the  London  "  Tab 
let,"  in  reprobation  of  those  American 
peace-mongers  who  could  not  be  brought 
to  understand  that  the  hope  of  the  Eng 
lishwoman's  heart  is  that  the  man  whom 
124 


Women  and  War 

she  has  lost,  —  husband,  son,  or  brother, 
—  should  not  have  died  in  vain. 

Next  to  intelligence,  a  woman's  most 
valuable  asset  is  a  reasonable  modesty. 
She  is  terribly  hampered  by  a  conviction 
of  her  own  goodness.  It  gets  in  her  way 
at  every  step,  clouding  her  naturally 
clear  perceptions,  and  clogging  her  nat 
urally  keen  conscientiousness.  She  is 
wrong  in  assuming  with  Miss  Addams 
that  she  feels  a  "  peculiar  moral  passion 
of  revolt  against  both  the  cruelty  and 
the  waste  of  war."  She  is  wrong  in  as 
suming  with  Madame  Schwimmer  that 
she  "supplants  physical  courage  with 
moral  courage,"  when  she  calls  noisily 
for  peace.  There  are  men  in  plenty  who 
feel  the  moral  passion  of  revolt  quite  as 
keenly  as  do  the  most  sensitive  of  women ; 
but  who  also  feel  the  moral  responsibil 
ity  of  defending  the  safety  of  their  coun 
try,  the  sacredness  of  their  homes.  The 
moral  courage  demanded  of  every  sol 
dier  is  fully  as  great  as  the  physical  cour- 
125 


Counter-Currents 

age,  at  which  women  dare  to  sneer.  It 
is  not  a  light  thing  to  give  up  life, — 
"Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this, 
that  he  lay  down  his  life  for  his  friends  ; " 
—  yet  death  is  the  least  of  the  horrors 
which  soldiers  daily  face. 
*  The  third  and  most  vital  thing  asked 
of  women  in  these  dread  days  is  self- 
sacrifice.  They  must  give  their  share  of 
help,  they  must  bear  their  share  of  sor 
row.  They  cannot  dignify  their  reluct 
ance  to  do  this  by  calling  it  moral  revolt, 
or  moral  courage,  or  any  other  high- 
sounding  name.  They  cannot  claim  for 
themselves  a  loftier  virtue  on  the  score 
of  their  lower  hardihood.  Civic  morality 
consists  in  putting  the  good  of  the  state 
above  the  good  of  the  individual.  It  has 
no  other  test.  If  women  are,  as  they  say, 
responsible  for  the  conservation  of  hu 
man  life,  they  should  hold  themselves 
responsible  for  the  ennobling  of  human 
life,  for  the  cherishing  of  some  finer  in 
stinct  than  that  of  self-preservation.  On 
126 


Women  and  War 

the  body  of  a  young  French  lieutenant 
who  was  killed  at  Vermelles,  there  was 
found  a  letter  to  his  wife,  which  contained 
this  pregnant  sentence:  "  Promise  not  to 
begrudge  me  to  France,  if  she  takes  me 
altogether."  These  few  words  are  an 
epitome  of  patriotism.  Husband  and 
wife  gave  to  their  country  all  they  had 
to  give ;  the  one  his  life,  the  other  her 
love  ;  and  both  knew  that  there  is  some 
thing  better  than  human  life  and  love. 

In  the  genial  reign  of  Henry  the  Eighth, 
a  docile  Parliament  passed,  at  the  desire 
of  the  King,  an  "Act  to  abolish  Diversity 
of  Opinion."  President  Wilson,  less  des 
potic,  has  recommended  something  of 
the  same  order  as  a  mental  process,  a 
soul  -smothering,  harmony  -  preserving, 
intellectual  anodyne.  It  is  called  neutral 
ity,  and  if  it  has  failed  to  save  us  from 
shameful  insults  and  repeated  wrongs, 
it  has  kept  us  fairly  quiet  under  provoca 
tion.  The  only  authorized  outlet  for  our 
emotions  has  been  a  prayer  (conditions 
127 


Counter-Currents 

not  mentioned)  for  peace.  Because  we 
have  schooled  ourselves  to  witness  in 
justice  — and  occasionally  suffer  it — with 
out  undue  resentment,  and  without  re 
prisal,  our  reward  in  money  has  been  very 
great ;  and  we  have  kept  on  terms  with 
our  own  souls  by  giving  back  to  deso 
late  Europe  a  little  of  the  wealth  we 
drew  from  her.  Our  position  has  always 
been  a  tenable  one,  and  no  nation  has 
had  any  ground  on  which  to  censure  us ; 
but  we  have  found  in  it  scant  encourage 
ment  for  self-esteem.  Even  the  flowers 
of  domestic  oratory,  the  oft-repeated  as 
sertion  that  our  prudence  and  our  wealth 
make  us  respected  on  earth,  and  blessed 
in  the  sight  of  Heaven,  fail  to  quicken 
our  sad  hearts.  For,  from  over  the  sea, 
comes  a  cry  which  sounds  like  the  echo  of 
words  with  which  we  were  once  familiar, 
of  which  we  were  once  proud.  "With 
firmness  in  the  right,  as  God  gives  us  to 
see  the  right,  let  us  strive  on  to  finish  the 
work  we  are  in." 

128 


Women  and  War 

This  is  the  potent  voice  of  humanity, 
never  to  be  silenced  while  men  stay  men. 
The  "work"  was  bloody  work;  brother 
slaying  brother  on  the  battlefield.  The 
women  of  the  North  and  the  women  of 
the  South  bore  their  share  of  sorrow. 
They  did  not  assert  that  they  were  vic 
tims  of  men's  unbridled  ambition,  and 
they  never  intimated  to  one  another  that 
the  final  victory  was  to  them  a  matter 
of  unconcern.  Theirs  was  the  "  solemn 
pride"  of  sacrifice;  and  that  fine  phrase, 
dedicated  by  Mr.  Lincoln  to  the  woman 
who  had  sent  five  sons  to  the  conflict,  is 
applicable  to  thousands  of  mothers  to 
day.  The  writer  knows  a  young  French 
man  who,  when  the  war  broke  out,  had 
lived  for  some  years  in  this  country,  and 
hoped  to  make  it  his  permanent  home. 
To  him  his  mother  wrote :  "  My  son,  your 
two  brothers  are  at  the  front.  Are  you 
not  coming  back  to  fight  for  France?" 
The  lad  had  not  meant  to  go.  Perhaps 
he  coveted  safety.  Perhaps  he  held  life 
129 


Counter-Currents 

(his  life)  to  be  a  sacred  thing.  Perhaps 
he  thought  to  comfort  his  mother's  old 
age.  But  when  that  letter  came,  he  sailed 
on  the  next  steamer.  It  was  a  summons 
that  few  men,  and  certainly  no  French 
man,  could  deny. 

When  the  women  of  France  refused  to 
participate  in  the  International  Congress 
of  Women  at  The  Hague,  they  defined 
their  position  in  a  document  so  dignified, 
so  lucid,  and  so  logical,  that  it  deserves  to 
be  handed  down  to  future  ages  as  an  illus 
tration  of  inspired  common  sense  lifted  to 
the  heights  of  heroism.  Let  no  one  who 
reads  it  ever  deny  that  women  are  capable 
of  clear  thinking,  of  sane  and  balanced 
judgment.  In  contrast  to  the  vague  and 
formless  peace-talk  which  came  floating 
over  to  us  from  Holland,  and  has  been  re 
echoed  ever  since;  talk  which  starting 
from  no  definite  premises  has  reached  no 
just  conclusions,  the  clear  utterances  of 
these  French  women  rang  with  insistent 
exactitude.  They  rejected  all  sentimental 
130 


Women  and  War 

abstractions,  and  presented  in  a  concrete 
form  the  circumstances  which  had  pushed 
France  into  the  conflict,  and  which  held 
her  still  at  bay.  "  It  were  treason  to  think 
of  peace,  until  that  peace  can  consecrate 
the  principles  of  right." 

The  rationality  of  the  French  mind, 
the  essentially  practical  nature  of  the 
French  genius,  are  responsible  for  the 
form  of  this  historic  document ;  but  back 
of  the  form  lies  the  spirit,  and  the  spirit 
is  one  of  sustained  self-sacrifice.  "  To-day 
it  is  with  pride  we  wear  our  weeds ;  it  is 
with  gratitude  that  we  perpetuate  the 
memory  of  our  dead."  At  a  time  when 
every  franc  could  buy  some  sorely  needed 
supply,  when  every  hour  could  be  filled 
with  some  sorely  needed  service,  sensible 
Frenchwomen  refused  to  spend  both 
money  and  time  in  journeying  to  The 
Hague  for  the  dear  delights  of  talking. 
But  deeper  than  their  reluctance  to  do  a 
wasteful  thing  was  their  reluctance  to  do 
a  treasonable  thing,  to  put  the  comforts 


Counter-Currents 

of  peace  above  the  sacrifices  entailed  by 
war,  to  refuse  by  word  or  deed  their  share 
of  a  common  burden. 

It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  these  brave 
and  suffering  women  do  not  feel  a  moral 
revolt  against  the  cruelty  and  the  waste 
of  war  quite  as  sharply  as  does  Miss 
Addams,  or  any  Hague  delegate,  or  any 
one  of  Mr.  Ford's  tourists.  The  "  basic 
foundation  of  home  and  of  peaceful  in 
dustry  "  is  as  dear  to  them  as  to  the  Ameri 
can  women  who  talk  so  much  about  it. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  their  devotion 
which  holds  together  the  shattered  homes 
of  France,  their  industry  which  preserves 
economic  safety,  and  gives  food  and  shel 
ter  to  the  destitute.  And  through  terrible 
months  of  pain  and  privation,  we  have 
heard  from  the  lips  of  Frenchwomen  no 
wild  and  weak  complaints.  Never  once 
have  they  assumed  that  they  were  better 
and  nobler  than  their  husbands  and  sons 
who  died  for  the  needs  of  France. 

When  the  late  Justice  Brewer  said 
132 


Women  and  War 

that  "since  the  beginning  of  days" 
women  have  been  opposed  to  blood 
shed,  we  wondered  —  without  doubting 
the  truth  of  his  assertion  —  how  he  came 
to  find  it  out.  Certainly  not  from  the 
pages  of  history,  which  afford  little  or 
no  evidence  on  the  subject.  This  may 
be  one  reason  why  feminists  are  pro 
testing  stoutly  against  the  way  in  which 
history  has  been  written,  its  indiscreet 
revelations,  its  disconcerting  silences. 
At  a  meeting  of  the  Women's  Political 
Union  in  New  York,  October,  1914,  it 
was  boldly  urged  that  history  should  be 
re-written  on  a  peace  basis ;  less  em 
phasis  placed  upon  nationalism,  less 
space  devoted  to  wars.  At  a  meeting  of 
the  National  Municipal  League  in  Balti 
more  the  same  year,  it  was  urged  that 
history  should  be  re-written  on  a  femi 
nine  basis ;  less  emphasis  placed  upon 
men,  less  space  devoted  to  their  achieve 
ments.  One  revolutionist  complained 
with  exceeding  bitterness  that  President 
133 


Counter-Currents 

Wilson  hardly  makes  mention  of  women 
in  his  five  volumes  of  American  history. 
The  " knell"  of  that  kind  of  narrative, 
she  intimated,  had  "  rung." 

The  historian  of  the  future  will  find 
his  task  pleasantly  simplified.  He  will  be 
a  little  like  two  young  Americans  whom  I 
once  met  scampering  blithely  over  south 
ern  Europe,  and  to  whom  I  ventured 
to  say  that  they  covered  their  ground 
quickly.  "  No  trouble  about  that,"  an 
swered  one  of  them.  "  We  draw  the  line 
at  churches  and  galleries,  and  there  's 
nothing  left  to  see."  So,  too,  the  chronicler 
who  eliminates  men  and  war  from  his 
pages  can  move  swiftly  down  the  centu 
ries.  Even  an  earnest  effort  to  minimize 
these  factors  suggests  that  blight  of  my 
girlhood,  Miss  Strickland,  who  forever 
strove  to  withdraw  her  wandering  atten 
tion  from  warrior  and  statesman,  and 
fix  it  on  the  trousseau  of  a  queen. 

History  is,  and  has  always  been  tram 
melled  by  facts.  It  may  ignore  some 
134 


Women  and  War 

and  deny  others  ;  but  it  cannot  accom 
modate  itself  unreservedly  to  theories ; 
it  cannot  be  stripped  of  things  evidenced 
in  favour  of  things  surmised.  Perhaps 
instead  of  asking  to  have  it  remodelled 
in  our  behalf,  we  women  might  take  the 
trouble  to  read  it  as  it  is  ;  dominated  by 
men,  disfigured  by  conflict,  but  not  al 
together  ignoble  or  unprofitable,  and 
always  very  enlightening.  We  might 
learn  from  it,  for  example,  that  war  may 
be  wicked,  and  war  may  be  justifiable; 
that  wife  and  child,  far  from  being  un- 
considered  trifles,  have  nerved  men's 
arms  to  strike ;  and  that  when  home, 
country,  freedom  and  justice  are  at 
stake,  "  it  were  treason  to  think  of  peace, 
until  that  peace  can  consecrate  the  prin 
ciples  of  right." 


The  Repeal  of  Reticence 

THERE  is  nothing  new  about  the 
Seven  Deadly  Sins.  They  are  as 
old  as  humanity.  There  is  noth 
ing  mysterious  about  them.  They  are 
easier  to  understand  than  the  Cardinal 
Virtues.  Nor  have  they  dwelt  apart  in 
secret  places  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  have 
presented  themselves,  undisguised  and 
unabashed,  in  every  corner  of  the  world, 
and  in  every  epoch  of  recorded  history. 
Why  then  do  so  many  men  and  women 
talk  and  write  as  if  they  had  just  dis 
covered  these  ancient  associates  of  man 
kind?  Why  do  they  press  upon  our 
reluctant  notice  the  result  of  their  re 
searches  ?  Why  this  fresh  enthusiasm  in 
dealing  with  a  foul  subject  ?  Why  this  re 
lentless  determination  to  make  us  inti 
mately  acquainted  with  matters  of  which 
a  casual  knowledge  would  suffice  ? 
136 


The  Repeal  of  Reticence 

Above  all,  why  should  our  self-ap 
pointed  instructors  assume  that  because 
we  do  not  chatter  about  a  thing,  we 
have  never  heard  of  it  ?  The  well-ordered 
mind  knows  the  value,  no  less  than  the 
charm,  of  reticence.  The  fruit  of  the  tree 
of  knowledge,  which  is  now  recom 
mended  as  nourishing  for  childhood, 
strengthening,  for  youth,  and  highly  re 
storative  for  old  age,  falls  ripe  from  its 
stem  ;  but  those  who  have  eaten  with 
sobriety  find  no  need  to  discuss  the  pro 
cesses  of  digestion.  Human  experience 
is  very,  very  old.  It  is  our  surest  monitor, 
our  safest  guide.  To  ignore  it  crudely 
is  the  error  of  those  ardent  but  unin- 
structed  missionaries  who  have  lightly 
undertaken  the  re-building  of  the  social 
world. 

Therefore  it  is  that  the  public  is  be 
ing  daily  instructed  concerning  matters 
which  it  was  once  assumed  to  know, 
and  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  has  al 
ways  known.  When  "The  Lure"  was 
137 


Counter-Currents 

played  three  years  ago  at  the  Maxine 
Elliott  Theatre  in  New  York,  the  re 
doubtable  Mrs.  Pankhurst  arose  in  Mrs. 
Belmont's  box,  and,  unsolicited,  informed 
the  audience  that  it  was  the  truth  which 
was  being  nakedly  presented  to  them, 
and  that  as  truth  it  should  be  taken  to 
heart.  Now,  it  is  probable  that  the  au 
dience —  adult  men  and  women  —  knew 
as  much  about  the  situations  developed 
in  "  The  Lure"  as  did  Mrs.  Pankhurst.  It 
is  possible  that  some  of  them  knew  more, 
and  could  have  given  her  points.  But 
whatever  may  be  the  standard  of  moral 
ity,  the  standard  of  taste  (and  taste  is  a 
guardian  of  morality)  must  be  curiously 
lowered,  when  a  woman  spectator  at  an 
indecent  play  commends  its  indecencies 
to  the  careful  consideration  of  the  audi 
ence.  Even  the  absurdity  of  the  proceed 
ing  fails  to  win  pardon  for  its  grossness. 
It  is  not  so  much  the  nature  of  the 
advice  showered  upon  us  to  which  we 
reasonably  object,  but  the  fact  that  a 
138 


The  Repeal  of  Reticence 

great  deal  of  it  is  given  in  the  wrong 
way,  at  the  wrong  time,  by  the  wrong 
people.  Who  made  Mrs.  Pankhurst  our 
nursery  governess,  and  put  us  in  her 
hands  for  schooling?  We  might  safely 
laugh  at  and  ignore  these  unsolicited 
exhortations,  were  it  not  that  the  crude 
detailing  of  matters  offensive  to  modesty 
is  as  hurtful  to  the  young  as  it  is  weari 
some  to  the  old.  Does  it  never  occur  to 
the  women,  who  are  now  engaged  in 
telling  the  world  what  the  world  has 
known  since  the  days  of  Nineveh,  that 
more  legitimate,  and,  on  the  whole,  more 
enlightened  avenues  exist  for  the  distri 
bution  of  such  knowledge? 

11  Are  there  no  clinics  at  our  gates, 
Nor  any  doctors  in  the  land  ?  " 

The  ' ( Conspiracy  of  Silence  "  is  broken. 
Of  that  no  one  can  doubt.  The  phrase 
may  be  suffered  to  lapse  into  oblivion. 
In  its  day  it  was  a  menace,  and  few  of 
us  would  now  advocate  the  deliberate 
139 


Counter-Currents 

ignoring  of  things  not  to  be  denied.  Few 
of  us  would  care  to  see  the  rising  gen 
eration  as  uninstructed  in  natural  laws 
as  we  were,  as  adrift  amid  the  unintelli 
gible,  or  partly  intelligible  things  of  life. 
But  surely  the  breaking  of  silence  need 
not  imply  the  opening  of  the  floodgates 
of  speech.  It  was  never  meant  by  those 
who  first  cautiously  advised  a  clearer  un 
derstanding  of  sexual  relations  and  hy 
gienic  laws  that  everybody  should  chat 
ter  freely  respecting  these  grave  issues ; 
that  teachers,  lecturers,  novelists,  story- 
writers,  militants,  dramatists,  and  social 
workers  should  copiously  impart  all  they 
know,  or  assume  they  know,  to  the  world. 
The  lack  of  restraint,  the  lack  of  balance, 
the  lack  of  soberness  and  common  sense 
were  never  more  apparent  than  in  the 
obsession  of  sex,  which  has  set  us  all 
a-babbling  about  matters  once  excluded 
from  the  amenities  of  conversation. 

Knowledge  is  the  cry.    Crude,  undi 
gested   knowledge,    without    limit   and 
140 


The  Repeal  of  Reticence 

without  reserve.  Give  it  to  boys,  give 
it  to  girls,  give  it  to  children.  No  other 
force  is  taken  into  account  by  the  vision 
aries  who  —  in  defiance,  or  in  ignorance, 
of  history  —  believe  that  evil  understood 
is  evil  conquered.  "The  menace  of  deg 
radation  and  destruction  can  be  checked 
only  by  the  dissemination  of  knowledge 
on  the  subject  of  sex-physiology  and 
hygiene,"  writes  an  enthusiast  in  the 
"  Forum,"  calling  our  attention  to  the 
methods  which  have  been  employed  by 
some  public  schools,  noticeably  the  Poly 
technic  High  School  of  Los  Angeles,  for 
the  instruction  of  students ;  and  urging 
that  similar  lectures  be  given  to  boys 
and  girls  in  the  grammar  schools.  It  is 
noticeable  that  while  a  woman  doctor 
was  employed  to  lecture  to  the  girl  stu 
dents  of  the  Polytechnic,  a  "  science 
man"  was  chosen  by  preference  for  the 
boys.  Doctors  are  proverbially  reticent, 
—  except,  indeed,  on  the  stage,  where 
they  prattle  of  all  they  know ;  but  a 
141 


Counter-Currents 

-  as  distinct  from  a  man 
of  science  —  may  be  trusted,  if  he  be 
young  and  ardent,  to  conceal  little  or 
nothing  from  his  hearers.  The  lectures 
were  obligatory  for  the  boys,  but  op 
tional  for  the  girls,  whose  inquisitiveness 
could  be  relied  upon.  "  The  universal 
eagerness  of  under-classmen  to  reach  the 
serene  upper  heights"  (I  quote  the  lan 
guage  of  the  "Forum")  "  gave  the 
younger  girls  increased  interest  in  the 
advanced  lectures,  if,  indeed,  a  girl's 
natural  curiosity  regarding  these  vital 
facts  needs  any  stimulus." 

Perhaps  it  does  not,  but  I  am  disposed 
to  think  it  receives  a  strong  artificial 
stimulus  from  instructors  whose  minds 
are  unduly  engrossed  with  sexual  prob 
lems,  and  that  this  artificial  stimulus  is 
a  menace  rather  than  a  safeguard.  We 
hear  too  much  about  the  thirst  for  knowl 
edge  from  people  keen  to  quench  it.  Dr. 
Edward  L.  Keyes  advocates  the  teach 
ing  of  sex-hygiene  to  children,  because 
142 


The  Repeal  of  Reticence 

he  thinks  it  is  the  kind  of  information 
that  children  are  eagerly  seeking.  "  What 
is  this  topic,"  he  asks,  "  that  all  these 
little  ones  are  questioning  over,  mulling 
over,  fidgeting  over,  imagining  over, 
worrying  over?  Ask  your  own  memo 
ries." 

I  do  ask  my  memory  in  vain  for  the 
answer  Dr.  Keyes  anticipates.  A  child's 
life  is  so  full,  and  everything  that  enters 
it  seems  of  supreme  importance.  I  fidg 
eted  over  my  hair,  which  would  not 
curl.  I  worried  over  my  examples,  which 
never  came  out  right.  I  mulled  (though 
unacquainted  with  the  word)  over  every 
piece  of  sewing  put  into  my  incapable 
fingers,  which  could  not  be  trained  to 
hold  a  needle.  I  imagined  I  was  stolen 
by  brigands,  and  became  —  by  virtue  of 
beauty  and  intelligence  —  spouse  of  a 
patriotic  outlaw  in  a  frontierless  land.  I 
asked  artless  questions  which  brought 
me  into  discredit  with  my  teachers,  as, 
for  example,  who  "  massacred  "  St.  Bar- 


Counter-Currents 

tholomew.  But  vital  facts,  the  great  laws 
of  propagation,  were  matters  of  but 
casual  concern,  crowded  out  of  my  life, 
and  out  of  my  companions'  lives  (in  a 
convent  boarding-school)  by  the  more 
stirring  happenings  of  every  day.  How 
could  we  fidget  over  obstetrics  when  we 
were  learning  to  skate,  and  our  very 
dreams  were  a  medley  of  ice  and  bumps? 
How  could  we  worry  over  "  natural 
laws"  in  the  face  of  a  tyrannical  inter 
dict  which  lessened  our  chances  of  break 
ing  our  necks  by  forbidding  us  to  coast 
down  a  hill  covered  with  trees  ?  The 
children  to  be  pitied,  the  children  whose 
minds  become  infected  with  unwhole 
some  curiosity,  are  those  who  lack  cheer 
ful  recreation,  religious  teaching,  and  the 
fine  corrective  of  work.  A  playground 
or  a  swimming-pool  will  do  more  to  keep 
them  mentally  and  morally  sound  than 
scores  of  lectures  upon  sex-hygiene. 

The  point  of  view  of  the  older  genera 
tion  was  not  altogether  the  futile  thing 
144 


The  Repeal  of  Reticence 

it  seems  to  the  progressive  of  to-day.  It 
assumed  that  children  brought  up  in 
honour  and  goodness,  children  disci 
plined  into  some  measure  of  self-restraint, 
and  taught  very  plainly  the  difference  be 
tween  right  and  wrong  in  matters  child 
ish  and  seasonable,  were  in  no  supreme 
danger  from  the  gradual  and  somewhat 
haphazard  expansion  of  knowledge.  It 
unconsciously  reversed  the  adage, "  Fore 
warned,  forearmed,"  into  "  Forearmed, 
forewarned  "  ;  paying  more  heed  to  the 
arming  than  to  the  warning.  It  held  that 
the  workingman  was  able  to  rear  his 
children  in  decency.  The  word  degrada 
tion  was  not  so  frequently  coupled  with 
poverty  as  it  is  now.  Nor  was  it  any 
body's  business  in  those  simple  days  to 
impress  upon  the  poor  the  wretchedness 
of  their  estate. 

If  knowledge  alone  could  save  us  from 
sin,  the  salvation  of  the  world  would  be 
easy  work.  If  by  demonstrating  the  in- 
juriousness  of  evil,  we  could  insure  the 


Counter-Currents 

acceptance  of  good,  a  little  logic  would 
redeem  mankind.  But  the  laying  of  the 
foundation  of  law  and  order  in  the  mind, 
the  building  up  of  character  which  will 
be  strong  enough  to  reject  both  folly  and 
vice,  —  this  is  no  facile  task. 

The  justifiable  reliance  placed  by  our 
fathers  upon  religion  and  discipline  has 
given  place  to  a  reliance  upon  under 
standing.  It  is  assumed  that  youth  will 
abstain  from  wrong-doing,  if  only  the 
physical  consequences  of  wrong-doing 
are  made  sufficiently  clear.  There  are 
those  who  believe  that  a  regard  for  fu 
ture  generations  is  a  powerful  deterrent 
from  immorality,  that  boys  and  girls 
can  be  so  interested  in  the  quality  of  the 
baby  to  be  born  in  1990  that  they  will 
master  their  wayward  impulses  for  its 
sake.  What  does  not  seem  to  occur  to 
us  is  that  this  deep  sense  of  obligation  to 
ourselves  and  to  our  fellow  creatures  is 
the  fruit  of  self-control.  A  course  of  lec 
tures  will  not  instil  self-control  into  the 
146 


The  Repeal  of  Reticence 

human  heart.  It  is  born  of  childish  vir 
tues  acquired  in  childhood,  youthful  vir 
tues  acquired  in  youth,  and  a  wholesome 
preoccupation  with  the  activities  of  life 
which  gives  young  people  something  to 
think  about  besides  the  sexual  relations 
which  are  pressed  so  relentlessly  upon 
their  attention. 

The  world  is  wide,  and  a  great  deal  is 
happening  in  it.  I  do  not  plead  for  igno 
rance,  but  for  the  gradual  and  harmoni 
ous  broadening  of  the  field  of  knowledge, 
and  for  a  more  careful  consideration  of 
ways  and  means.  There  are  subjects 
which  may  be  taught  in  class,  and  sub 
jects  which  commend  themselves  to  in 
dividual  teaching.  There  are  topics  which 
admit  of  plein-air  handling,  and  topics 
which  civilized  man,  as  apart  from  his 
artless  brother  of  the  jungles,  has  veiled 
with  reticence.  There  are  truths  which 
may  be,  and  should  be,  privately  im 
parted  by  a  father,  a  mother,  a  family 
doctor,  or  an  experienced  teacher ;  but 
H7 


Counter-Currents 

which  young  people  cannot  advanta 
geously  acquire  from  the  platform,  the 
stage,  the  moving-picture  gallery,  the 
novel,  or  the  ubiquitous  monthly  maga 
zine. 

Yet  all  these  sources  of  information 
are  competing  with  one  another  as  to 
which  shall  tell  us  most.  All  of  them 
have  missions,  and  all  the  missions  are 
alike.  We  are  gravely  assured  that  the 
drama  has  awakened  to  a  high  and  holy 
duty,  that  it  has  a  "  serious  call,"  in  obe 
dience  to  which  it  has  turned  the  stage 
into  a  clinic  for  the  diagnosing  of  dis 
ease,  and  into  a  self-authorized  commis 
sion  for  the  intimate  study  of  vice.  It 
advertises  itself  as  "battling  with  the 
evils  of  the  age,"  —  which  are  the  evils 
of  every  age,  —  and  its  method  of  war 
fare  is  to  exploit  the  sins  of  the  sensual 
for  the  edification  of  the  virtuous,  to 
rake  up  the  dunghills  with  the  avowed 
purpose  of  finding  a  jewel.  The  doors  of 
the  brothel  have  been  flung  hospitably 
148 


The  Repeal  of  Reticence 

open,  and  we  have  been  invited  to  peep 
and  peer  (always  in  the  interests  of  mo 
rality)  into  regions  which  were  formerly 
closed  to  the  uninitiated.  It  has  been  dis 
covered  that  situations,  once  the  exclusive 
property  of  the  police  courts,  make  valu 
able  third  acts,  or  can  be  usefully  em 
ployed  in  curtain-lifters,  unclean  and  un- 
dramatic,  but  which  claim  to  "  tell  their 
story  so  clearly  that  the  daring  is  lost  in 
the  splendid  moral  lesson  conveyed." 
Familiarity  with  vice  (which  an  old-fash 
ioned  but  not  inexperienced  moralist 
like  Pope  held  to  be  a  perilous  thing)  is 
advocated  as  a  safeguard,  especially  for 
the  young  and  ardent.  The  lowering  of 
our  standard  of  taste,  the  deadening  of 
our  finer  sensibilities,  are  matters  of  no 
moment  to  dramatist  or  to  manager. 
They  have  other  interests  at  stake. 

For  depravity  is  a  valuable  asset  when 

presented  to  the  consideration  of  the  un- 

depraved.  It  has  coined  money  for  the 

proprietors  of  moving-pictures,  who  for 

149 


Counter-Currents 

the  past  few  years  have  been  sending 
shows  with  attractive  titles  about  "  White 
Slaves,"  and  "  Outcasts,"  and  "  Traffic  in 
Souls,"  all  over  the  country.  Many  of 
these  shows  claimed  to  be  dramatizations 
of  the  reports  of  vice-commissioners,  who 
have  thus  entered  the  arena  of  sport,  and 
become  purveyors  of  pleasure  to  the  mul 
titude.  "Original,"  " Authentic,"  "Au 
thorized,"  are  words  used  freely  in  their 
advertisements.  The  public  is  assured 
that  "  care  has  been  taken  to  eliminate 
all  suggest! veness,"  which  is  in  a  measure 
true.  When  everything  is  told,  there  is 
no  room  left  for  suggestions.  If  you  kick 
a  man  down  stairs  and  out  of  the  door, 
you  may  candidly  say  that  you  never 
suggested  he  should  leave  your  house. 
Now  and  then  a  particularly  lurid  rev 
elation  is  commended  to  us  as  having 
received  the  endorsement  of  leading 
feminists ;  and  again  we  are  driven  to 
ask  why  should  these  ladies  assume  an 
intimate  knowledge  of  such  alien  mat- 
150 


The  Repeal  of  Reticence 

ters  ?  Why  should  they  play  the  part  of 
mentors  to  such  an  experienced  Telem- 
achus  as  the  public? 

It  is  hard  to  estimate  the  harm  done 
by  this  persistent  and  crude  handling  of 
sexual  vice.  The  peculiar  childishness 
inherent  in  all  moving-picture  shows 
may  possibly  lessen  their  hurtfulness. 
What  if  the  millionaires  and  the  political 
bosses  so  depicted  spend  their  existence 
is  entrapping  innocent  young  women? 
A  single  policeman  of  tender  years,  a 
single  girl,  inexperienced  but  resourceful, 
can  defeat  these  fell  conspirators,  and 
bring  them  all  to  justice.  Never  were 
villains  so  helpless  in  a  hard  and  virtu 
ous  world.  But  silliness  is  no  sure  safe 
guard,  and  to  excite  in  youth  a  curiosity 
concerning  brothels  and  their  inmates 
can  hardly  fail  of  mischief.  To  demon 
strate  graphically  and  publicly  the  value 
of  girls  in  such  places  is  to  familiarize 
them'  dangerously  with  sin.  I  can  but 
hope  that  the  little  children  who  sit  stol- 


Counter-Currents 

idly  by  their  mothers'  sides,  and  whom 
the  authorities  of  every  town  should  ex 
clude  from  all  shows  dealing  with  prosti 
tution,  are  saved  from  defilement  by  the 
invincible  ignorance  of  childhood.  As  for 
the  groups  of  boys  and  young  men  who 
compose  the  larger  part  of  the  audiences, 
and  who  snigger  and  whisper  whenever 
the  situations  grow  intense,  nobody  in 
his  senses  could  assert  that  the  pictures 
convey  a  "moral  lesson"  to  them. 

Nor  is  it  for  the  conveying  of  lessons 
that  managers  present  these  photo-plays 
to  the  public.  They  are  out  to  make 
money,  and  they  are  making  it.  Granted 
that  when  M.  Brieux  wrote  "  Les  A  va 
ries,"  he  purposed  a  stern  warning  to  the 
pleasure-loving  world.  No  one  can  read 
the  simple  and  sober  words  with  which 
he  prefaced  the  work,  and  doubt  his  ab 
solute  sincerity.  Granted,  though  with 
some  misgivings,  that  the  presentation 
of  "  Damaged  Goods  "  in  this  country  — 
albeit  commercialized  and  a  smart  busi- 
152 


The  Repeal  of  Reticence 

ness  venture  —  had  still  a  moral  and  sci 
entific  significance.  It  was  not  primarily 
designed  as  an  exploitation  of  vice.  But 
to  tell  such  a  story  in  moving  pictures  is 
to  rob  it  of  all  excuse  for  being  told  at 
all.  To  thrust  such  a  theme  grossly  and 
vulgarly  before  the  general  public,  strip 
ping  it  of  nobility  of  thought  and  exacti 
tude  of  speech,  and  leaving  only  the  dull 
dregs  of  indecency,  is  an  uncondonable 
offense,  —  the  deeper  because  it  claims  to 
be  beneficent. 

In  one  respect  all  the  studies  of  seduc 
tion  now  presented  so  urgently  to  our 
regard  are  curiously  alike.  They  all  con 
spire  to  lift  the  burden  of  blame  from  the 
woman's  shoulders,  to  free  her  from  any 
sense  of  human  responsibility.  It  is  as 
sumed  that  she  plays  no  part  in  her  own 
undoing,  that  she  is  as  passive  as  the 
animal  bought  for  vivisection,  as  mute 
and  helpless  in  the  tormentors'  hands. 
The  tissue  of  false  sentiment  woven 
about  her  has  resulted  in  an  extraordi- 
153 


Counter-Currents 

nary  confusion  of  outlook,  a   perilous 
nullification  of  honesty  and  honour. 

To  illustrate  this  point,  I  quote  some 
verses  which  appeared  in  a  periodical 
devoted  to  social  work,  a  periodical  with 
high  and  serious  aims.  I  quote  them  re 
luctantly  (not  deeming  them  fit  for  pub 
lication),  and  only  because  it  is  impossible 
to  ignore  the  fact  that  their  appearance 
in  such  a  paper  makes  them  doubly  and 
trebly  reprehensible.  They  are  entitled 
"  The  Cry  to  Christ  of  the  Daughters  of 
Shame." 

"  Crucified  once  for  the  sins  of  the  world, 
O  fortunate  Christ!  "  they  cry: 

"  With  an  Easter  dawn  in  thy  dying  eyes, 
O  happy  death  to  die! 

"  But  we,  —  we  are  crucified  daily, 

With  never  an  Easter  morn; 

But  only  the  hell  of  human  lust,    ) 

And  worse,  —  of  human  scorn. 

"  For  the  sins  of  passionless  women, 
For  the  sins  of  passionate  men, 

154 


The  Repeal  of  Reticence 

Daily  we  make  atonement, 
Golgotha  again  and  again. 

"  0  happy  Christ,  who  died  for  love, 

Judge  us  who  die  for  lust. 
For  thou  wast  man,  who  now  art  God. 
Thou  knowest.  Thou  art  just." 

Now  apart  from  the  offence  against 
religion  in  this  easy  comparison  between 
the  Saviour  and  the  woman  of  the 
streets,  and  apart  from  the  deplorable 
offence  against  good  taste,  which  might 
repel  even  the  irreligious,  such  unquali 
fied  acquittal  stands  forever  in  the  way 
of  reform,  of  the  judgment  and  common 
sense  which  make  for  the  betterment  of 
the  world.  How  is  it  possible  to  awaken 
any  healthy  emotion  in  the  hearts  of  sin 
ners  so  smothered  in  sentimentality  ? 
How  is  it  possible  to  make  girls  and 
young  women  (as  yet  respectable)  un 
derstand  not  only  the  possibility,  but  the 
obligation  of  a  decent  life  ? 

There  would  be  less  discussion  of  mer 
etricious  subjects,  either  in  print  or  in 
155 


Counter-Currents 

conversation,  were  it  not  for  the  morbid 
sensibility  which  has  undermined  our 
judgment,  and  set  our  nerves  a-quivering. 
Even  a  counsellor  so  sane  and  so  expe 
rienced  as  the  Reverend  Honourable 
Edward  Lyttelton,  Headmaster  of  Eton, 
who  has  written  an  admirable  volume 
on  "  Training  of  the  Young  in  Laws  of 
Sex,"  drops  his  tone  of  wholesome  aus 
terity  as  soon  as  he  turns  from  the  safe 
guarding  of  lads  to  the  pensive  con 
sideration  of  women.  Boys  and  men  he 
esteems  to  be  captains  of  their  souls,  but 
the  woman  is  adrift  on  the  sea  of  life. 
He  does  not  urge  her  to  restraint;  he 
pleads  for  her  to  the  masters  of  her  fate. 
"The  unhappy  partners  of  a  rich  man's 
lust,"  he  writes,  "are  beings  born  with 
the  mighty  power  to  love,  and  are  en 
dowed  with  deep  and  tender  instincts  of 
loyalty  and  motherhood.  When  these 
divine  and  lovely  graces  of  character  are 
utterly  shattered  and  foully  degraded, 
the  man,  on  whom  all  the  treasure  has 

156 


The  Repeal  of  Reticence 

been  lavished,  tries  to  believe  that  he  has 
made  ample  reparation  by  an  annuity  of 
fifty  pounds." 

This  kind  of  sentiment  is  out!  of -place 
in  everything  save  eighteenth-century 
lyrics,  which  are  not  expected  to  be  a 
guiding  force  in  morals.  A  woman  with 
"lovely  graces  of  character"  does  not 
usually  become  the  mistress  even  of  a 
rich  man.  After  all,  there  is  such  a  thing 
as  triumphant  virtue.  It  has  an  estab 
lished  place  in  the  annals  and  traditions, 
the  ballads  and  stories  of  every  land. 

"  A  mayden  of  England,  sir,  never  will  be 

The  wench  of  a  monarcke,"  quoth  Mary  Ambree. 

It  is  like  a  breath  of  fresh  air  blowing 
away  mists  to  hear  this  gay  and  gallant 
militant  assert  the  possibilities  of  resist 
ance. 

Forty  years  ago,  a  writer  in  "  Black- 
wood's  Magazine"  commented  upon  the 
amazing  fact  that  in  Hogarth's  day  (more 
than  a  century  earlier)  vignettes  repre- 
157 


Counter-Currents 

senting  the  "  Rake's  Progress,"  and  the 
"  Harlot's  Progress,"  were  painted  upon 
fans  carried  by  young  women.  "English 
girls,"  said  this  sober  essayist,  "  were 
thus,  by  way  of  warning,  made  familiar 
with  subjects  now  wisely  withheld  from 
their  consideration." 

The  pendulum  has  swung  backward 
since  1876.  Even  Hogarth,  who  dealt 
for  the  most  part  with  the  robust  sim 
plicities  of  sin,  would  have  little  to  teach 
the  rising  generation  of  1916.  Its  sources 
of  knowledge  are  manifold,  and  astound- 
ingly  explicit.  Stories  minutely  describ 
ing  houses  of  ill-fame,  their  furniture, 
their  food,  their  barred  windows,  their 
perfumed  air,  and  the  men  with  melan 
choly  eyes  who  visit  them.  Novels  pur 
porting  to  be  candid  and  valuable  studies 
of  degeneracy  and  nymphomania.  Plays 
and  protests  urging  stock-farm  methods 
of  breeding  the  human  race.  Papers  on 
venereal  diseases  scattered  broadcast 
through  the  land.  Comment  upon  those 
158 


The  Repeal  of  Reticence 

unnatural  vices  which  have  preceded 
the  ruin  of  cities  and  the  downfall  of 
nations,  and  veiled  allusions  to  which 
have  marked  the  deepest  degradation 
of  the  French  stage.  All  these  horrors, 
which  would  have  made  honest  old 
Hogarth  turn  uneasily  in  his  grave,  are 
offered  for  the  defence  of  youth  and  the 
purifying  of  civilized  society. 

The  lamentable  lack  of  reserve  is  closely 
associated  with  a  lamentable  absence  of 
humour.  We  should  be  saved  from  many 
evils,  if  we  could  laugh  at  more  absurd 
ities.  We  could  clearly  estimate  the  value 
of  reform,  if  we  were  not  so  befuddled 
with  the  sensationalism  of  reformers,  and 
so  daunted  by  the  amazing  irregularity 
of  their  methods.  What  can  be  thought 
of  a  woman  who  goes  to  a  household  of 
strangers,  and  volunteers  to  instruct  its 
members  in  sex-hygiene!  In  the  case 
which  came  under  my  notice,  the  visi 
tor  chanced  upon  a  family  of  spinsters, 
discreet,  retiring,  well-conducted  gentle- 
159 


Counter-Currents 

women,  the  eldest  of  whom  was  eighty, 
and  the  youngest  sixty  years  of  age. 
But  while  this  circumstance  added  to  the 
humour  of  the  situation,  it  in  no  wise 
lessened  its  insolent  impropriety. 

The  enthusiasm  for  birth-control  has 
carried  its  advocates  so  fast  and  so  far 
from  the  conventions  of  society  that  two 
of  them  have  been  arrested  in  the  State 
of  New  York  for  circulating  indecent 
matter  through  the  mails,  and  one  has 
been  convicted  on  this  charge.  To  run 
amuck  through  the  formalities  of  civiliza 
tion,  and  then  proclaim  yourself  a  martyr 
to  science  and  the  public  good,  is  one 
way  of  acquiring  notoriety.  To  invite 
the  selfish  and  the  cowardly  to  follow  the 
line  of  least  resistance  is  one  way,  and  a 
very  easy  way,  of  ensuring  popularity. 
Thirty  years  ago,  Mr.  Robert  Louis  Ste 
venson  wrote  the  story  of  a  Spanish  girl, 
born  of  a  decadent  and  perishing  race, 
to  whom  comes  the  promise  of  love,  and 
of  escape  from  her  dire  surroundings. 
1 60 


The  Repeal  of  Reticence 

Both  these  boons  she  rejects,  knowing 
that  the  line  from  which  she  springs  is  fit 
for  nothing  but  extinction,  and  knowing 
also  that  lesson  hard  to  learn,  —  "that 
pain  is  the  choice  of  the  magnanimous, 
that  it  is  better  to  suffer  all  things,  and  do 
well."  Twenty  years  ago,  Miss  Elizabeth 
Robins  gave  us  her  solution  of  a  similar 
problem.  The  heroine  of  her  novel,  fully 
aware  that  she  comes  of  a  stock  diseased 
in  mind  and  body,  and  that  her  lover, 
who  is  near  of  kin,  shares  this  inheritance, 
forces  upon  him  (he  is  a  quiescent  gentle 
man,  more  than  willing  to  be  let  alone) 
first  marriage,  and  then  suicide.  We  must 
have  our  hour  of  happiness,  is  her  initial 
demand.  We  must  pay  the  price,  is  her 
ultimate  decision.  In  our  day,  the  noble 
austerity  commended  by  Mr.  Stevenson, 
the  passionate  wilfulness  condoned  by 
Miss  Robins,  are  equally  out  of  date. 
The  International  Neo-Malthusian  Bu 
reau  has  easier  methods  to  propose,  and 
softer  ways  to  sanction. 
161 


Counter-Currents 

It  is  touching  to  hear  Mr.  Percy  Mac- 
Kaye  lament  that  "Mendelism  has  as  yet 
hardly  begun  to  influence  art  or  popular 
feeling"  ;  but  he  must  not  lose  hope, — 
not,  at  least,  so  far  as  popular  feeling  is 
concerned.  "Practical  eugenics"  is  a 
phrase  as  familiar  in  our  ears  as  "  inten 
sive  farming."  "  How  can  we  make  the 
desirable  marry  one  another?"  asks  Dr. 
Alexander  Graham  Bell,  and  answers  his 
own  question  by  affirming  that  every 
community  should  take  a  hand  in  the 
matter,  giving  the  "support  of  public 
opinion,"  and  the  more  emphatic  support 
of  "important  and  well-paid  positions" 
to  a  choice  stock  of  men,  provided  al 
ways  that,  "in  the  interests  of  the  race," 
they  marry  and  have  offspring. 

This  is  practical  eugenics  with  a  ven 
geance,  but  it  is  not  practical  business. 
Apart  from  the  fact  that  most  men  and 
women  regard  marriage  as  a  personal 
matter,  with  which  their  neighbours  have 
no  concern,  it  does  not  follow  that  the 
162 


The  Repeal  of  Reticence 

admirable  and  athletic  young  husband 
possesses  any  peculiar  ability.  Little  runts 
of  men  are  sometimes  the  ablest  of  citi 
zens.  When  Nature  is  in  a  jesting  mood, 
her  best  friends  marvel  at  her  blunders. 
The  connection  between  Mendelism 
and  art  is  still  a  trifle  strained.  It  is  an 
alliance  which  Mendel  himself — good 
abbot  of  Briinn  working  patiently  in  his 
cloister  garden  —  failed  to  take  into  ac 
count.  The  field  of  economics  is  not  Art's 
chosen  playground;  the  imparting  of 
scientific  truths  has  never  been  her  mis 
sion.  Whether  she  deals  with  high  and 
poignant  emotions,  or  with  the  fears  and 
wreckage  of  life,  she  subdues  these  hu 
man  elements  into  an  austere  accord  with 
her  own  harmonious  laws.  She  is  as  re 
mote  from  the  crudities  of  the  honest  but 
uninspired  reformer  who  dabbles  in  fic 
tion  and  the  drama,  as  she  is  remote 
from  the  shameless  camp-followers  of  re 
form,  for  whose  base  ends,  no  less  than 
for  our  instruction  and  betterment,  the 
163 


Counter-Currents 

Seven  Deadly  Sins  have  acquired  their 
present  regrettable  popularity.  Liberated 
from  the  unsympathetic  atmosphere  of 
the  catechism,  they  are  urged  upon  the 
weary  attention  of  adults,  embodied  in 
the  lessons  of  youth,  and  explained  in 
words  of  one  syllable  to  childhood.  Yet 
Hogarth  never  designed  his  pictures  to 
decorate  the  fans  of  women.  Suetonius 
never  related  his  "pleasant  atrocities " 
to  the  boys  and  girls  of  Rome,, 


Popular  Education 

THIS  is  so  emphatically  the  chil 
dren's  age  that  a  good  many  of 
us  are  beginning  to  thank  God 
we  were  not  born  in  it.  The  little  girl 
who  said  she  wished  she  had  lived  in  the 
time  of  Charles  the  Second,  because  then 
"  education  was  much  neglected,"  wins 
our  sympathy  and  esteem.  It  is  a  doubt 
ful  privilege  to  have  the  attention  of  the 
civilized  world  focussed  upon  us  both 
before  and  after  birth.  At  the  First  Inter 
national  Eugenics  Congress,  held  in  Lon 
don  in  the  summer  of  1912,  an  Italian 
delegate  made  the  somewhat  discourag 
ing  statement  that  the  children  of  very 
young  parents  are  more  prone  than  oth 
ers  to  theft ;  that  the  children  of  middle- 
aged  parents  are  apt  to  be  of  good  con 
duct,  but  of  low  intelligence ;  and  that  the 
children  of  elderly  parents  are,  as  a  rule, 

165 


Counter-Currents 

intelligent,  but  badly  behaved.  It  seems 
to  be  a  trifle  hard  to  bring  the  right  kind 
of  a  child  into  the  world.  Twenty-seven 
is,  in  this  eugenist's  opinion,  the  best  age 
for  parentage  ;  but  how  bend  all  the  com 
plicated  conditions  of  life  to  meet  an  ar 
bitrary  date ;  and  how  remain  twenty- 
seven  long  enough  to  insure  satisfactory 
results?  The  vast  majority  of  babies  will 
have  to  put  up  with  being  born  when 
their  time  comes,  and  make  the  best  of 
it.  This  is  the  first,  but  by  no  means  the 
worst,  disadvantage  of  compulsory  birth ; 
and  compulsory  birth  is  the  original  evil 
which  scientists  and  philanthropists  are 
equally  powerless  to  avert. 

If  parents  do  not  know  by  this  time 
how  to  bring  up  their  children,  it  is  not 
for  lack  of  instruction.  A  few  generations 
ago,  Solomon  was  the  only  writer  on 
child-study  who  enjoyed  any  vogue. 
Now  his  precepts,  the  acrid  fruits  of  expe 
rience,  have  been  superseded  by  more 
genial,  but  more  importunate  counsel. 
1 66 


Popular  Education 

Begirt  by  well-wishers,  hemmed  in  on 
every  side  by  experts  who  speak  of 
"  child-material "  as  if  it  were  raw  silk  or 
wood-pulp,  how  can  a  little  boy,  born  in 
this  enlightened  age,  dodge  the  educa 
tional  influences  which  surround  him? 
It  is  hard  to  be  dealt  with  as  "child- 
material,"  when  one  is  only  an  ordinary 
little  boy.  To  be  sure,  "  child-material " 
is  never  thrashed,  as  little  boys  were 
wont  to  be,  it  is  not  required  to  do  what 
it  is  told,  it  enjoys  rights  and  privileges 
of  a  very  sacred  and  exalted  character ; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  never  let 
alone,  and  to  be  let  alone  is  sometimes 
worth  all  the  ministrations  of  men  and 
angels.  The  helpless,  inarticulate  reti 
cence  of  a  child  is  not  an  obstacle  to  be 
overcome,  but  a  barrier  which  protects 
the  citadel  of  childhood  from  assault. 

We  can  break  down  this  barrier  in 

our  zeal ;  and  if  the  child  will  not  speak, 

we  can  at  least   compel   him  to  listen. 

He  is  powerless  to  evade  any  revelations 

167 


Counter-Currents 

we  choose  to  make,  any  facts  or  theories 
we  choose  to  elucidate.  We  can  teach  him 
sex-hygiene  when  he  is  still  young  enough 
to  believe  that  rabbits  lay  eggs.  We  can 
turn  his  work  into  play,  and  his  play  into 
work,  keeping  well  in  mind  the  educa 
tional  value  of  his  unconscious  activities, 
and,  by  careful  oversight,  pervert  a  game 
of  tag  into  a  preparation  for  the  business 
of  life.  We  can  amuse  and  interest  him 
until  he  is  powerless  to  amuse  and  inter 
est  himself.  We  can  experiment  with  him 
according  to  the  dictates  of  hundreds  of 
rival  authorities.  He  is  in  a  measure  at 
our  mercy,  though  nature  fights  hard 
for  him,  safeguarding  him  with  ignorance 
of  our  mode  of  thought,  and  indifference 
to  our  point  of  view.  The  opinions  of 
twelve-year-old  Bobby  Smith  are  of  more 
moment  to  ten-year-old  Tommy  Jones 
than  are  the  opinions  of  Dr.  and  Mrs. 
Jones,  albeit  Dr.  Jones  is  a  professor  of 
psychology,  and  Mrs.  Jones  the  president 
of  a  Parents'  League.  The  supreme 
;68 


Popular  Education 

value  of  Mr.  Robert  Louis  Stevenson's 
much-quoted  " Lantern  Bearers"  lies  in 
its  incisive  and  sympathetic  insistence 
upon  the  aloofness  of  the  child's  world,  — 
an  admittedly  imperfect  world  which  we 
are  burning  to  amend,  but  which  closed 
its  doors  upon  us  forever  when  we  grew 
into  knowledge  and  reason. 

My  own  childhood  lies  very  far  away. 
It  occurred  in  what  I  cannot  help  think 
ing  a  blissful  period  of  intermission.  The 
educational  theories  of  the  Edgeworths 
(evolved  soberly  from  the  educational 
excesses  of  Rousseau)  had  been  found  a 
trifle  onerous.  Parents  had  not  the  time 
to  instruct  and  admonish  their  children 
all  day  long.  As  a  consequence,  we  en 
joyed  a  little  wholesome  neglect,  and 
made  the  most  of  it.  The  new  era  of 
child-study  and  mothers'  congresses  lay 
darkling  in  the  future.  "  Symbolic  edu 
cation,"  "  symbolic  play,"  were  phrases 
all  unknown.  The  "  revolutionary  dis- 
of  Karl  Groos  had  not  yet 
169 


Counter-Currents 

overshadowed  the  innocent  diversions 
of  infancy.  Nobody  drew  scientific  de 
ductions  from  jackstones,  or  balls,  or 
gracehoops,  save  only  when  we  assailed 
the  wealth  of  nations  by  breaking  a  win 
dow-pane.  Nobody  was  even  aware  that 
the  impulses  which  sent  us  speeding  and 
kicking  up  our  heels  like  young  colts 
were  "  vestigial  organs  of  the  soul."  Dr. 
G.  Stanley  Hall  had  not  yet  invented  this 
happy  phrase  to  elucidate  the  simplici 
ties  of  play.  How  we  grasped  our  "ob 
jective  relationship"  to  our  mothers 
without  the  help  of  bird's-nest  games,  I 
do  not  know.  Perhaps,  in  the  general 
absence  of  experimentation,  we  had  more 
time  in  which  to  solve  the  artless  prob 
lems  of  our  lives.  Psychologists  in  those 
days  were  frankly  indifferent  to  us.  They 
had  yet  to  discover  our  enormous  value 
in  the  realms  of  conjectural  thought. 

The  education  of  my  childhood  was 
embryonic.  The  education  of  to-day  is 
exhaustive.  The  fact  that  the  school-child 
170 


Popular  Education 

of  to-day  does  not  seem  to  know  any 
more  than  we  knew  in  the  dark  ages,  is 
a  side  issue  with  which  I  have  no  con 
cern.  But  as  I  look  back,  I  can  now  see 
plainly  that  the  few  things  little  girls 
learned  were  admirably  adapted  for  one 
purpose,  —  to  make  us  parts  of  a  whole, 
which  whole  was  the  family.  I  do  not 
mean  that  there  was  any  expression  to 
this  effect.  "Training  for  maternity" 
was  not  a  phrase  in  vogue;  and  the  short 
views  of  life,  more  common  then  than 
now,  would  have  robbed  it  of  its  savour. 
"  Training  for  citizenship  "  had,  so  far  as 
we  were  concerned,  no  meaning  what 
soever.  A  little  girl  was  a  little  girl,  not 
the  future  mother  of  the  race,  or  the  fu 
ture  saviour  of  the  Republic.  One  thing 
at  a  time.  Therefore  no  deep  significance 
was  attached  to  our  possession  of  a  doll, 
no  concern  was  evinced  over  our  future 
handling  of  a  vote.  If  we  were  taught  to 
read  aloud  with  correctness  and  expres 
sion,  to  write  notes  with  propriety  and 


Counter-Currents 

grace,  and  to  play  backgammon  and 
whist  as  well  as  our  intelligence  per 
mitted,  it  was  in  order  that  we  should 
practise  these  admirable  accomplish 
ments  for  the  benefit  of  the  families  of 
which  we  were  useful,  and  occasionally 
ornamental  features. 

And  what  advantage  accrued  to  us 
from  an  education  so  narrowed,  so  il 
liberal,  so  manifestly  unconcerned  with 
great  social  and  national  issues?  Well, 
let  us  admit  that  it  had  at  least  the  quali 
ties  of  its  defects.  It  was  not  called  train 
ing  for  character,  but  it  was  admittedly 
training  for  behaviour,  and  the  founda 
tions  of  character  are  the  acquired  habits 
of  youth.  "  Habit,"  said  the  Duke  of 
Wellington,  "  is  ten  times  nature."  There 
was  precision  in  the  simple  belief  that 
the  child  was  strengthened  mentally  by 
mastering  its  lessons,  and  morally  by 
mastering  its  inclinations.  Therefore  the 
old-time  teacher  sought  to  spur  the  pupil 
on  to  keen  and  combative  effort,  rather 
172 


Popular  Education 

than  to  beguile  him  into  knowledge 
with  cunning  games  and  lantern  slides. 
Therefore  the  old-time  parent  set  a  high 
value  on  self-discipline  and  self-control. 
A  happy  childhood  did  not  necessarily 
mean  a  childhood  free  from  proudly 
accepted  responsibility.  There  are  few 
things  in  life  so  dear  to  girl  or  boy  as 
the  chance  to  turn  to  good  account  the 
splendid  self-confidence  of  youth. 

If  Saint  Augustine,  who  was  punished 
when  he  was  a  little  lad  because  he  loved 
to  play,  could  see  how  childish  pastimes 
are  dignified  in  the  pedagogy  of  the 
twentieth  century,  he  would  no  longer 
say  that  "  playing  is  the  business  of  child 
hood."  He  would  know  that  it  is  the  su 
premely  important  business,  the  crushing 
responsibility  of  the  pedagogue.  Noth 
ing  is  too  profound,  nothing  too  subtle 
to  be  evolved  from  a  game  or  a  toy.  We 
are  gravely  told  that  "  the  doll  with  its 
immense  educational  power  should  be 
carefully  introduced  into  the  schools," 
173 


Counter-Currents 

that  " Pussy-in-the-Corner  "  is  "an  Ari 
adne  clew  to  the  labyrinth  of  experience," 
and  that  a  ball,  tossed  to  the  accompani 
ment  of  a  song  insultingly  banal,  will 
enable  a  child  "to  hold  fast  one  high 
purpose  amid  all  the  vicissitudes  of  time 
and  place."  If  we  would  only  make  organ 
ized  play  a  part  of  the  school  curricu 
lum,  we  should  have  no  need  of  camps, 
or  drills,  or  military  training.  It  is  the 
moulder  of  men,  the  upholder  of  nations, 
the  character-builder  of  the  world. 

Mr.  Joseph  Lee,  who  has  written  a 
book  of  five  hundred  pages  on  "  Play  in 
Education,"  and  Mr.  Henry  S.  Curtis, 
who  has  written  a  book  of  three  hundred 
and  fifty  pages  on  "  Education  through 
Play,"  have  treated  their  theme  with  pro 
found  and  serious  enthusiasm,  which,  in 
its  turn,  is  surpassed  by  the  fervid  exal 
tation  of  their  reviewers.  These  counsel 
lors  have  so  much  that  is  good  to  urge 
upon  us,  and  we  are  so  ready  to  listen 
to  their  words,  that  they  could  have  well 
174 


Popular  Education 

afforded  to  be  more  convincingly  moder 
ate.  There  is  no  real  use  in  saying"  that 
it  is  play  which  makes  the  world  go 
round,  because  we  know  it  isn't.  If  it 
were,  the  world  of  the  savage  would  go 
round  as  efficaciously  as  the  world  of  the 
civilized  man.  When  Mr.  Lee  tells  us  that 
the  little  boy  who  plays  baseball  "  follows 
the  ball  each  day  further  into  the  unex 
plored  regions  of  potential  character, 
and  comes  back  each  evening  a  larger 
moral  being  than  he  set  forth,"  we  merely 
catch  our  breath,  and  read  on.  We  have 
known  so  many  boys,  and  we  'are  disil 
lusioned.  When  Mr.  Curtis  points  out 
to  us  that  English  school-boys  play  more 
and  play  better  than  any  other  lads,  and 
that  their  teachers  advocate  and  encour 
age  the  love  of  sport  because  it  breeds 
"  good  common  sense,  and  resourceful 
ness  which  will  enable  them  to  meet  the 
difficulties  of  life,"  weask  ourselves  doubt 
fully  whether  Englishmen  do  meet  life's 
difficulties  with  an  intelligence  so  keen 
175 


Counter-Currents 

and  adjusted  as  to  prove  the  potency  of 
play.  The  work  which  is  demanded  of 
French  and  German  school-boys  would 
seem  to  English  and  American  school 
boys  (to  say  nothing  of  English  and 
American  parents)  cruel  and  excessive ; 
yet  Frenchmen  and  Germans  are  not 
destitute  of  resourcefulness,  and  they 
meet  the  difficulties  of  life  with  a  concen 
tration  of  purpose  which  is  the  wonder 
of  the  world. 

Even  the  moderate  tax  which  is  now 
imposed  upon  the  leisure  and  freedom 
of  American  children  has  been  declared 
illegal.  It  is  possible  and  praiseworthy, 
we  are  assured,  to  spare  them  all  "un 
natural  restrictions,"  all  uncongenial  la 
bour.  There  are  pastimes  in  plenty  which 
will  impart  to  them  information,  with 
out  demanding  any  effort  on  their  part. 
Folk-songs,  and  rhythmic  dances,  and 
story-telling,  and  observation  classes,  and 
"  wholesome  and  helpful  games,'7  fill 
up  a  pleasant  morning  for  little  pu- 
176 


Popular  Education 

pils ;  and  when  they  grow  bigger,  more 
stirring  sports  await  them.  Listen  to 
Judge  Lindsey's  enthusiastic  description 
of  the  school-room  of  the  future,  where 
moving  pictures  will  take  the  place  of 
books  and  blackboards,  where  no  free 
child  will  be  "chained  to  a  desk"  (pain 
ful  phrase!),  and  where  "progressive 
educators"  will  make  merry  with  their 
pupils  all  the  happy  day. 

"  Mr.  Edison  is  coming  to  the  rescue 
of  Tony,"  says  Judge  Lindsey.  (Tony  is 
a  boy  who  does  not  like  school  as  it  is 
at  present  organized.)  "  He  will  take  him 
away  from  me,  and  put  him  in  a  school 
that  is  not  a  school  at  all,  but  just  one 
big  game;  —  just  one  round  of  joy,  of 
play,  of  gladness,  of  knowledge,  of  sun 
shine,  warming  the  cells  in  Tony's  head 
until  they  all  open  up  as  the  flowers 
do.  There  will  be  something  moving, 
something  doing  at  that  school  all  the 
time,  just  as  there  is  when  Tony  goes 
down  to  the  tracks  to  see  the  engines. 
177 


Counter-Currents 

"When  I  tell  him  about  it,  Tony 
shouts,  '  Hooray  for  Mr.  Edison ! '  right 
in  front  of  the  battery,  just  as  he  used  to 
say,  'To  hell  wid  de  cop.' " 

Now  this  is  an  interesting  exposition 
of  the  purely  sentimental  view  of  edu 
cation.  We  have  been  leading  up  to  it 
for  years,  ever  since  Froebel  uttered  his 
famous  "  Come,  let  us  live  with  our 
children ! "  and  here  it  is  set  down  in 
black  and  white  by  a  man  who  has  the 
welfare  of  the  young  deeply  at  heart. 
Judge  Lindsey  sympathizes  with  Tony's 
distaste  for  study.  He  points  out  to  us 
that  it  is  hard  for  a  boy  who  is  "the 
leader  of  a  gang"  to  be  laughed  at  by 
less  enterprising  children  because  he 
cannot  cipher.  Yet  to  some  of  us  it  does 
not  seem  altogether  amiss  that  Tony 
should  be  brought  to  understand  the  ex 
istence  of  other  standards  than  those  of 
hoodlumism.  Ciphering  is  dull  work  (so, 
at  least,  I  have  always  found  it),  and  dif 
ficult  work  too ;  but  it  is  hardly  fair  to 
178 


Popular  Education 

brand  it  as  ignoble.  Compared  with 
stealing  rails  from  a  freight-car,  which 
is  Tony's  alternative  for  school  attend 
ance,  it  even  has  a  dignity  of  its  own ; 
and  the  perception  of  this  fact  may  be 
a  salutary,  if  mortifying  lesson.  Judge 
Lindsey's  picturesque  likening  of  our 
antiquated  school  system  which  com 
pels  children  to  sit  at  desks,  with  the 
antiquated  Chinese  custom  which  bound 
little  girls'  feet,  lacks  discernment.  The 
underlying  motives  are,  in  these  in 
stances,  measurably  different,  the  proc 
esses  are  dissimilar,  the  results  have 
points  of  variance. 

Nobody  doubts  that  all  our  Tonys, 
rich  and  poor,  lawless  and  law-abiding, 
would  much  prefer  a  school  that  is  not 
a  school  at  all,  "  but  just  one  big  game  "  ; 
nobody  doubts  that  a  great  deal  of 
desultory  information  may  be  acquired 
from  films.  But  desultory  information  is 
not,  and  never  can  be,  a  substitute  for 
education  ;  and  habits  of  play  cannot  be 
179 


Counter-Currents 

trusted  to  develop  habits  of  work.  Our 
efforts  to  protect  the  child  from  doing 
what  he  does  not  want  to  do,  because  he 
does  not  want  to  do  it,  are  kind,  but  un 
intelligent.  Life  is  not  a  vapid  thing. 
"  The  world,"  says  Emerson,  "is  a  proud 
place,  peopled  with  men  of  positive  qual 
ity."  No  pleasure  it  can  give,  from  the 
time  we  are  seven  until  the  time  we  are 
seventy,  is  comparable  to  the  pleasure 
of  achievement. 

Dr.  Miinsterberg,  observing  with  dis 
may  the  "pedagogical  unrest"  which 
pervades  our  communities,  expresses  a 
naive  surprise  that  so  much  sound  advice, 
and  so  much  sound  instruction,  should 
leave  the  teacher  without  inspiration  or 
enthusiasm.  "  The  pile  of  interesting  facts 
which  the  sciences  heap  up  for  the  teach 
er's  use  grows  larger  and  larger,  but  the 
teacher  seems  to  stare  at  it  with  growing 
hopelessness." 

I  should  think  so.  A  pile  of  hetero 
geneous  facts  —  segments  of  segments 
1 80 


Popular  Education 

of  subjects  —  reduces  any  sane  teacher 
to  hopelessness,  because  he,  at  least,  is 
well  aware  that  his  pupils  cannot  possi 
bly  absorb  or  digest  a  tithe  of  the  material 
pressed  upon  their  acceptance.  Experi 
ence  has  taught  him  something  which 
his  counsellors  never  learn,  —  the  need 
of  limit,  the  "  feasibility  of  performance." 
Hear  what  one  teacher,  both  sane  and 
experienced,  has  to  say  concerning  the 
riot  of  facts  and  theories,  of  art  and  na 
ture,  of  science  and  sentiment,  which  the 
school  is  expected  to  reduce  into  an  or 
derly,  consistent,  and  practical  system  of 
education. 

"  It  is  not  enough  that  the  child  should 
be  taught  to  handle  skilfully  the  tools 
of  all  learning,  —  reading,  writing,  and 
arithmetic.  His  sense  of  form  and  his 
aesthetic  nature  must  be  developed  by 
drawing ;  his  hand  must  be  trained  by 
manual  work ;  his  musical  nature  must 
be  awakened  by  song;  he  must  be 
brought  into  harmony  with  his  external 
181 


Counter-Currents 

environment  by  means  of  nature  lessons 
and  the  study  of  science ;  his  patriotic 
impulses  must  be  roused  by  American 
history  and  by  flag-drills ;  temperance 
must  be  instilled  into  him  by  lessons  in 
physiology,  with  special  reference  to  the 
effects  of  alcohol  on  the  human  system ; 
his  imagination  must  be  cultivated  by 
the  help  of  Greek  and  Norse  mythology  ; 
he  must  gain  some  knowledge  of  the 
great  heroes  and  events  of  general  his 
tory;  he  must  acquire  a  love  for  and 
an  appreciation  of  the  best  literature 
through  the  plentiful  reading  of  master 
pieces,  while  at  the  same  time  his  mind 
should  be  stocked  with  choice  gems  of 
prose  and  verse,  which  will  be  a  solace 
to  him  throughout  his  later  life. 

"  It  might  be  well  if,  by  displacing  a 
little  arithmetic  or  geography,  he  could 
gain  some  knowledge  of  the  elements  of 
Latin  or  of  a  modern  language ;  in  some 
manner  there  must  be  roused  in  him  a 
love  for  trees,  a  respect  for  birds,  an  an- 
182 


Popular  Education 

tipathy  to  cigarettes,  and  an  ambition 
for  clean  streets  ;  and  somewhere,  some 
where  in  this  mad  chaos  he  must  learn  to 
spell !  Do  you  wonder  that  teachers  in 
progressive  schools  confide  to  us  that 
they  fear  their  pupils  are  slightly  bewil 
dered?  Do  you  wonder  that  pupils  do 
not  gain  the  habit  and  the  power  of  con 
centrated,  consecutive  work?  " 1 

And  this  irrational,  irrelevant  medley, 
this  educational  vaudeville,  must  be  ab 
sorbed  unconsciously,  and  without  effort, 
by  children  roused  to  interest  by  the 
sustained  enthusiasm  of  their  teachers, 
whom  may  Heaven  help!  If  the  pro 
gramme  is  not  full  enough,  it  can  be 
varied  by  lectures  on  sex-hygiene,  les 
sons  in  woodcraft  (with  reference  to  boy 
scouts),  and  pictures  illustrating  the  do 
mestic  habits  of  the  house-fly.  These, 
with  plenty  of  gymnastics,  and  a  little 
barefoot  dancing  for  girls,  may  bring  a 

1  The  Existing  Relations  beween  School  and  College, 
by  Wilson  Farrand. 

183 


Counter-Currents 

school  measurably  near  the  ideal  pro 
posed  by  Judge  Lindsey, —  a  place  where 
"  there  is  something  moving,  something 
doing  all  the  time,"  and  which  finds  its 
closest  counterpart  in  the  rushing  of  en 
gines  on  their  tracks. 

The  theory  that  school  work  must  ap 
peal  to  a  child's  fluctuating  tastes,  must 
attract  a  child's  involuntary  attention, 
does  grievous  wrong  to  the  rising  gen 
eration  ;  yet  it  is  upheld  in  high  places, 
and  forms  the  subject-matter  of  many 
addresses  vouchsafed  year  after  year  to 
long-suffering  educators.  They  should 
bring  to  bear  the  "  energizing  force  of 
interest,"  they  should  magnetize  their 
pupils  into  work.  Even  Dr.  Eliot  reminds 
them  with  just  a  hint  of  reproach  that,  if 
a  child  is  interested,  he  will  not  be  dis 
orderly;  and  this  reiterated  statement 
appears  to  be  the  crux  of  the  whole  dif 
ficult  situation.  Let  us  boldly  suppose 
that  a  child  is  not  interested,  —  and  he 
may  conceivably  weary  even  of  films,  — 
184 


Popular  Education 

is  it  then  optional  with  him  to  be,  or  not 
to  be,  disorderly,  and  what  is  the  effect 
of  his  disorder  on  other  children  whose 
tastes  may  differ  from  his  own? 

The  Right  Reverend  Mandell  Creigh- 
ton,  who  appears  to  have  made  more 
addresses  to  the  teachers  of  England  than 
any  other  ecclesiastic  of  his  day,  repeat 
edly  warned  them  that  they  should  not 
attempt  to  teach  any  subject  without  first 
making  clear  to  children  why  this  sub 
ject  should  command  attention.  If  they 
failed  to  do  so,  said  the  bishop  triumph 
antly,  the  children  would  not  attend.  He 
was  of  the  opinion  that  little  pupils  must 
not  only  be  rationally  convinced  that  what 
they  are  asked  to  do  is  worth  their  doing, 
but  that  they  must  enjoy  every  step  of 
their  progress.  A  teacher  who  could  not 
make  a  child  feel  that  it  is  "  just  as  agree 
able"  to  be  in  school  as  at  play,  had  not 
begun  his,  or  her,  pedagogical  career. 

This  is  a  hard  saying  and  a  false  one. 
Every  normal  child  prefers  play  to  work, 
185 


Counter-Currents 

and  the  precise  value  of  work  lies  in  its 
call  for  renunciation.  Nor  has  any  knowl 
edge  ever  been  acquired  and  retained 
without  endeavour.  What  heroic  pains 
were  taken  by  Montaigne's  father  to  spare 
his  little  son  the  harsh  tasks  of  the  school 
boy!  At  what  trouble  and  cost  to  the 
household  was  the  child  taught  "the 
pure  Latin  tongue  "  in  infancy,  "without 
bookes,  rules,  or  grammar,  without  whip 
ping  or  whining"!  Greek  was  also  im 
parted  to  him  in  kindly  fashion,  "by  way 
of  sporte  and  recreation."  "  We  did  tosse 
our  declinations  and  conjugations  to  and 
fro,  as  they  doe,  who,  by  means  of  a  cer- 
taine  game  at  tables,  learne  both  Arithme- 
ticke  and  Geometric."  Assuredly  the 
elder  Montaigne  was  a  man  born  out 
of  date.  In  our  happier  age  he  would 
have  been  a  great  and  honoured  upholder 
of  educational  novelties,  experimenting 
with  the  school-rooms  of  the  world.  In  the 
sixteenth  century  he  was  only  a  country 
gentleman,  experimenting  with  his  son, — 
186 


Popular  Education 

a  son  who  bluntly  confesses  that,  of  the 
Greek  thus  pleasantly  trifled  with,  he 
had  "  but  small  understanding,"  and  that 
the  Latin  which  had  been  his  mother 
tongue  was  speedily  "  corrupted  by  dis 
continuance." 

All  the  boy  gained  by  the  most  elab 
orate  system  ever  devised  for  the  saving 
of  labour  was  that  he  "  overskipped  "  the 
lower  forms  in  school.  What  he  lost  was 
the  habit  of  mastering  his  "prescript  les 
sons,"  which  he  seems  to  have  disliked 
as  heartily  as  any  student  of  Guienne. 
Neither  loss  nor  gain  mattered  much  to 
a  man  of  original  parts.  The  principal 
result  of  his  father's  scheme  was  the  lin 
gering  of  certain  Latin  words  among  the 
simple  folk  of  Perigord,  who,  having 
painfully  acquired  these  strange  terms  in 
order  to  rescue  their  little  master  from 
his  schoolbooks,  retained  and  made  use 
of  them  all  their  lives. 

An  emphatic  note  of  protest  against 
our  well-meant  but  enfeebling  educa- 


Counter-Currents 

tional  methods  was  struck  by  Professor 
William  James  in  his  "  Talks  to  Teach 
ers,"  published  in  1899.  The  phrase 
"Economy  of  Effort,"  so  dear  to  the 
kindly  hearts  of  FroebePs  followers,  had 
no  meaning  for  Dr.  James.  The  ingeni 
ous  system  by  which  the  child's  tasks,  as 
well  as  the  child's  responsibilities,  are 
shifted  to  the  shoulders  of  the  teacher, 
made  no  appeal  to  his  incisive  intelli 
gence.  He  stoutly  asserted  that  effort  is 
oxygen  to  the  lungs  of  youth,  and  that  it  is 
sheer  nonsense  to  suppose  that  every  step 
of  education  can  possibly  be  made  in 
teresting.  The  child,  like  the  man,  must 
meet  his  difficulties,  and  master  them. 
There  is  no  lesson  worth  learning,  no 
game  worth  playing,  which  does  not  call 
for  exertion.  Rousseau,  it  will  be  remem 
bered,  would  not  permit  fimile  to  know 
what  rivalry  meant.  That  harassed  child 
never  even  ran  a  race,  lest  the  base  spirit 
of  competition  should  penetrate  his  nerve 
less  little  being.  But  Professor  James,  deaf 
1 88 


Popular  Education 

to  social  sentimentalities,  averred  that 
rivalry  is  the  spur  of  action,  and  the  im 
pelling  force  of  civilization.  "  There  is  a 
noble  and  generous  kind  of  rivalry  as 
well  as  a  spiteful  and  greedy  kind,"  he 
wrote  truthfully,  "  and  the  noble  and 
generous  form  is  particularly  common  in 
childhood.  All  games  owe  the  zest  which 
they  bring  with  them  to  the  fact  that  they 
are  rooted  in  the  emulous  passion,  yet 
they  are  the  chief  means  of  training  in 
fairness  and  magnanimity." 

I  am  aware  that  it  is  a  dangerous  thing 
to  call  kindness  sentimental ;  but  our  feel 
ing  that  children  have  a  right  to  happi 
ness,  and  our  sincere  effort  to  protect 
them  from  any  approach  to  pain,  have 
led  imperceptibly  to  the  elimination  from 
their  lives  of  many  strength-giving  in 
fluences.  A  recent  volume  on  "  Child 
Culture"  (a  phrase  every  whit  as  repre 
hensible  as  "  child-material ")  speaks  al 
ways  of  naughty  children  as  "  patients," 
implying  that  their  unfortunate  condition 
189 


Counter-Currents 

is  involuntary,  and  must  be  cured  from 
without,  not  from  within.  The  "  rights  of 
children"  include  the  doubtful  privilege 
of  freedom  from  restraint,  and  the  doubt 
ful  boon  of  shelter  from  obligation.  It 
seems  sweet  and  kind  to  teach  a  child 
high  principles  and  steadfastness  of  pur 
pose  by  means  of  symbolic  games  rather 
than  by  any  open  exaction.  Unconscious 
obedience,  like  indirect  taxation,  is  sup 
posed  to  be  paid  without  strain.  Our 
feverish  fear  lest  we  offend  against  the 
helplessness  of  childhood,  our  feverish 
concern  lest  it  should  be  denied  its  full 
measure  of  content,  drive  us,  burdened 
as  we  are  with  good  intentions,  past  the 
border-line  of  wisdom.  If  we  were 

"Less  winning  soft,  less  amiably  mild," 

we  might  see  more  clearly  the  value  of 
standards. 

Two  years  ago  I  had  sent  me  several 
numbers  of  a  Los  Angeles  newspaper. 
They  contained  a  spirited  and  sympa- 
190 


Popular  Education 

thetic  account  of  a  woman  who  had  been 
arrested  for  stealing  a  child's  outfit,  and 
who  pleaded  in  court  that  she  wanted 
the  garments  for  her  daughter,  the  little 
girl  having  refused  to  go  to  school,  be 
cause  other  children  had  laughed  at  her 
shabby  clothes.  The  effect  of  this  pathetic 
disclosure  was  instantaneous  and  over 
whelming.  The  woman  was  released,  and 
kind-hearted  people  hastened  to  send 
"  nicey "  frocks  by  the  "  wagon-load  "  to 
the  ill-used  child.  A  picture  of  the  heroic 
mother  in  a  large  plumed  hat,  and  an 
other  of  little  Ellen  in  curls  and  hair- 
ribbons,  occupied  prominent  places  in  the 
paper.  The  public  mind  was  set  at  rest 
concerning  the  quality  of  the  goods  do 
nated.  "  Ellen  is  going  to  school  to-day," 
wrote  the  jubilant  reporter.  "  She  is  go 
ing  to  wear  a  fluffy  new  dress  with  lace, 
and  hair-ribbons  to  match.  And  if  any 
rude  boy  so  far  forgets  himself  as  to  tear 
that  wondrous  creation,  there  will  be 
others  at  home  to  replace  it.  Happy,  oh, 
191 


Counter-Currents 

so  happy  was  the  little  miss,  as  she 
shook  her  curls  over  the  dainty  dress  to 
day.  And  the  mother?  Well,  a  faith  in 
the  inherent  goodness  of  mankind  has 
been  rekindled  in  her  bosom." 

Now  the  interesting  thing  about  this 
journalistic  eloquence,  and  the  public 
sentiment  it  represented,  is  that  while 
shabbiness  was  admittedly  a  burden  too 
heavy  for  a  child  to  bear,  theft  carried 
with  it  no  shadow  of  disgrace.  Children 
might  jeer  at  a  little  girl  in  a  worn  frock, 
but  a  little  girl  in  "lace  and  hair-rib 
bons"  was  manifestly  above  reproach. 
Her  mother's  transgression  had  covered 
her  with  glory,  not  with  shame.  There 
seems  to  be  some  confusion  of  standards 
in  such  a  verdict,  some  deviation  from 
the  paths  of  rectitude  and  honour.  It  is 
hard  for  a  child  to  be  more  poorly 
dressed  than  her  companions ;  but  to 
convince  her  that  dishonesty  is  the  best 
policy  and  brings  its  own  reward,  is  but 
a  dubious  kindness.  Nor  is  it  impossible 
192 


Popular  Education 

to  so  stiffen  her  moral  fibre  that  her  poor 
dress  may  be  worn,  if  not  with  pride,  at 
least  with  sturdy  self-control. 

On  this  point  I  know  whereof  I  speak, 
for,  when  I  was  a  little  girl,  my  convent 
school  sheltered  a  number  of  Southern 
children,  reduced  to  poverty  by  the  Civil 
War,  and  educated  (though  of  this  no 
one  was  aware)  by  the  boundless  char 
ity  of  the  nuns.  These  children  were 
shabby,  with  a  pathetic  shabbiness  which 
fell  far  below  our  very  moderate  require 
ments.  Their  dresses  (in  my  prehistoric 
days,  school  uniforms  were  worn  only  on 
Thursdays  and  Sundays)  were  strangely 
antiquated,  as  though  cut  down  from  the 
garments  of  mothers  and  grandmothers, 
their  shoes  were  scuffed,  their  hats  were 
hopeless.  But  the  unquenchable  pride 
with  which  they  bore  themselves  invested 
such  hardships  with  distinction.  Their 
poverty  was  the  honourable  outcome  of 
war ;  and  this  fact,  added  to  their  simple 
and  sincere  conviction  that  a  girl  born 
193 


Counter-Currents 

below  the  Mason  and  Dixon  line  must 
necessarily  be  better  than  a  girl  born 
above  it,  carried  them  unscathed  through 
the  valley  of  humiliation.  Looking  back 
now  with  an  unbiassed  mind,  I  am  dis 
posed  to  consider  their  claim  to  superi 
ority  unfounded ;  but,  at  the  time,  their 
single  -  mindedness  carried  conviction. 
The  standards  they  imposed  were  pre 
eminently  false,  but  they  were  less  igno 
ble  than  the  standards  imposed  by  wealth. 
No  little  American  boy  or  girl  can  know 
to-day  what  it  means  to  have  the  char 
acter  set  in  childhood  by  history,  by  the 
vividness  of  early  years  lived  under 
strange  and  violent  conditions,  by  the 
sufferings,  the  triumphs,  the  high  and  sad 
emotions  of  war. 

There  is  a  story  told  by  Sir  Francis 
Doyle  which  illustrates,  after  the  rude 
fashion  of  our  forebears,  the  value  of  en 
durance  as  an  element  of  education.  Dr. 
Keate,  the  terrible  head-master  of  Eton, 
encountered  one  winter  morning  a  small 
194 


Popular  Education 

boy  crying  miserably,  and  asked  him 
what  was  the  matter.  The  child  replied 
that  he  was  cold.  "  Cold ! "  roared  Keate. 
"You  must  put  up  with  cold,  sir!  You 
are  not  at  a  girls'  school." 

It  is  a  horrid  anecdote,  and  I  am  kind- 
hearted  enough  to  wish  that  Dr.  Keate, 
who  was  not  without  his  genial  moods, 
had  taken  the  lad  to  some  generous  fire 
(presuming  such  a  thing  was  to  be  found), 
and  had  warmed  his  frozen  hands  and 
feet.  But  it  so  chanced  that  in  that  little 
snivelling  boy  there  lurked  a  spark  of 
pride  and  a  spark  of  fun,  and  both  ignited 
at  the  rough  touch  of  the  master.  He 
probably  stopped  crying,  and  he  certainly 
remembered  the  sharp  appeal  to  man 
hood.  Fifteen  years  later  he  charged 
with  the  Third  Dragoons  at  the  strongly 
entrenched  Sikhs  (thirty  thousand  of  the 
best  fighting  men  of  the  Khalsa)  on  the 
curving  banks  of  the  Sutlej.  When 
the  word  was  given,  he  turned  to  his 
superior  officer,  a  fellow  Etonian  who 
195 


Counter-Currents 

was  scanning  the  stout  walls  and  the 
belching  guns.  "  As  old  Keate  would  say, 
this  is  no  girls'  school,"  he  chuckled  ;  and 
rode  to  his  death  on  the  battlefield  of 
Sobraon,  which  gave  Lahore  to  Eng 
land. 

Contemplating  which  incident,  and 
many  like  it,  we  become  aware  that  ease 
is  not  the  only  good  in  a  world  conse 
crated  to  the  heroic  business  of  living 
and  of  dying. 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

IT  is  now  nearly  fifty  years  since  Mr. 
Lowell  wrote  his  famous  essay,  "  On 
a  Certain  Condescension  in  For 
eigners"  ;  an  essay  in  which  justifiable 
irritation  prompted  the  telling  of  plain 
truths,  and  an  irrepressible  sense  of  hu 
mour  made  these  truths  amusing.  It  was 
well  for  Mr.  Lowell  that  he  was  seldom 
too  angry  to  laugh,  and  he  knew,  as  only 
a  man  of  the  world  can  know,  the  saving 
grace  of  laughter.  Therefore,  though 
confessedly  unable  to  understand  why 
foreigners  should  be  persuaded  that  "  by 
doing  this  country  the  favour  of  coming 
to  it,  they  have  laid  every  native  thereof 
under  an  obligation,"  he  was  willing  in 
certain  light-minded  moods  to  acquit 
himself  honourably  of  the  debt.  When  a 
genteel  German  mendicant  presented  a 
letter,  u  professedly  written  by  a  benev- 
197 


Counter-Currents 

olent  American  clergyman,"  and  certify 
ing  that  the  bearer  thereof  had  long 
"sofered  with  rheumatic  paints  in  his 
limps,"  Mr.  Lowell  rightly  considered 
that  a  composition  so  rich  in  the  naivete 
common  to  all  Teuton  mendacities  was 
worth  the  money  asked.  When  a  French 
traveller  assured  him,  with  delightful  bon 
homie,  that  Englishmen  became  Amer 
icanized  so  rapidly  that  "  they  even 
begin  to  talk  through  their  noses,  just 
like  you  do,"  the  only  comment  of  our 
representative  American  was  that  he  felt 
ravished  by  this  testimony  to  the  assim 
ilating  powers  of  democracy. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  well  in  these  years 
of  grace  to  reread  Mr.  Lowell's  essay, 
partly  because  of  its  sturdy  and  digni 
fied  Americanism,  and  partly  because  we 
can  then  compare  his  limited  experiences 
with  our  own.  We  can  also  speculate 
pleasantly  upon  his  frame  of  mind  could 
he  have  lived  to  hear  Mrs.  Amadeus  Gra- 
bau  (Mary  Antin)  say,  "Lowell  would 
198 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

agree  with  me,"  —  the  point  of  agree 
ment  being  the  relative  virtues  of  the 
Pilgrim  Fathers  and  the  average  immi 
grant  of  to-day.  When  the  dead  are 
quoted  in  this  fashion  and  nothing  hap 
pens,  then  we  know  that,  despite  the  as 
surances  of  Sir  Oliver  Lodge,  the  seal 
of  silence  is  unbroken.  Were  the  proud 
souls  who  have  left  us,  able  and  willing 
to  return,  it  would  not  be  to  reveal  the 
whereabouts  of  a  lost  penknife,  but  to 
give  the  lie  to  the  words  which  are 
spoken  in  their  name. 

The  condescension  which  Mr.  Lowell 
observed  and  analyzed  was  in  his  day 
the  shining  quality  of  foreigners  who 
visit  our  shores.  Immigrants  were  then 
less  aggressive  and  less  profoundly  self- 
conscious  than  they  are  now,  and  it  is 
the  immigrant  who  counts.  It  is  his  arro 
gance,  not  the  misapprehension  of  the 
tourist,  or  the  innocent  pride  of  the 
lecturer,  which  constitutes  a  peril  to  our 
republic.  We  can  all  of  us  afford  to  smile 
199 


Counter-Currents 

with  Mr.  Lowell  at  the  men  and  women 
who,  while  accepting  our  hospitality, 
"make  no  secret  of  regarding  us  as  the 
goose  bound  to  deliver  them  a  golden 
egg  in  return  for  their  cackle."  That  they 
should  not  hesitate  to  come  without 
equipment,  without  experience,  without 
even  a  fitness  for  their  task,  seems  to  us 
perfectly  natural.  Perhaps  they  have  writ 
ten  books  which  none  of  us  have  read,  or 
edited  periodicals  which  none  of  us  have 
seen.  Perhaps  they  have  known  celeb 
rities  of  whom  few  of  us  have  heard.  It 
does  not  matter  in  the  least.  From  the 
days  when  Miss  Rose  Kingsley  came  to 
tell  us  the  worth  of  French  art  (does  not 
the  ocean  roll  between  New  York  and 
Paris?),  to  the  days  when  Mrs.  Pankhurst 
came  to  tell  us  the  worth  of  womanhood 
(does  not  the  ocean  roll  between  Boston 
Common  and  Hyde  Park?),  we  have  lis 
tened  patiently,  and  paid  generously,  and 
received  scant  courtesy  for  our  pains.  "  I 
find  it  so  strange,"  said  an  Englishman 
200 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

to  me  three  years  ago,  "  to  see  my  wife 
lecturing  over  the  United  States.  It  is  a 
thing  she  would  not  dream  of  doing  at 
home.  In  fact,  nobody  would  go  to  hear 
her,  you  know." 

But  lectures  are  transient  things,  for 
given  as  soon  as  forgotten.  Even  the 
books  which  are  written  about  us  make 
no  painful  bid  for  immortality.  And 
though  our  visitors  patronize  us,  they 
seldom  fail  to  throw  us  a  kind  word  now 
and  then.  Sometimes  a  sweet-tempered 
and  very  hurried  traveller,  like  Mr.  Arnold 
Bennett,  is  good  enough  to  praise  every 
thing  he  thinks  he  has  seen.  Before  Au 
gust,  1914,  it  was  not  the  habit  of  our 
guests  to  scold  or  threaten  us.  That  privi 
lege  had  hitherto  been  reserved  for  the 
alien,  who,  having  done  us  the  honour  of 
accepting  citizenship,  wields  his  vote  as 
a  cudgel,  bidding  us  beware  the  weapon 
we  have  amiably  placed  in  his  hands. 

Signer  Ferrero,  an  acute  and  friendly 
critic,  pronounces  Americans  to  be  the 
201 


Counter-Currents 

mystics  of  the  modern  world,  because 
they  sacrifice  their  welfare  to  a  sentiment ; 
because  they  believe  in  the  miracle  of 
the  melting-pot,  which,  like  Medea's 
magic  cauldron,  will  turn  the  old  and  de 
crepit  races  of  Europe  into  a  young  and 
vigorous  people,  new-born  in  soul  and 
body.  No  other  nation  cherishes  this  il 
lusion.  An  Englishman  knows  that  a 
Russian  Jew  cannot  in  five  years,  or  in 
twenty-five  years,  become  English;  that 
his  standards  and  ideals  are  not  convert 
ible  into  English  standards  and  ideals.  A 
Frenchman  does  not  see  in  a  Bulgarian 
or  a  Czech  the  making  of  another 
Frenchman.  Our  immigrants  may  be  as 
good  as  we  are.  Sometimes  we  are  told 
they  are  better,  that  we  might  "  learn  a 
lesson"  from  the  least  promising  among 
them.  But  no  one  can  deny  that  they  are 
different ;  in  many  instances,  radically 
and  permanently  different.  And  to  make 
a  sow's  ear  out  of  a  silk  purse  is  just  as 
difficult  as  the  reverse  operation.  Mr. 
202 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

Horace  Kallen  has  put  the  case  into  a 
few  clear  conclusive  words  when  he  says, 
"  Only  men  who  are  alike  in  origin  and 
spirit,  and  not  abstractly,  can  be  truly 
equal,  and  maintain  that  inward  una 
nimity  of  action  and  outlook  which 
makes  a  national  life.'* 

To  look  for  "inward  unanimity" 
among  the  seething  mass  of  immigrants 
who  have  nothing  more  in  common  with 
one  another  than  they  have  with  us,  is 
to  tax  credulity  too  far.  The  utmost  we 
can  hope  is  that  their  mutual  antago 
nisms  will  neutralize  their  voting  power, 
and  keep  our  necks  free  from  an  alien 
yoke.  Those  of  us  who  have  lived  more 
than  half  a  century  have  seen  strange 
fluctuations  in  the  fortunes  of  the  for 
eign-born.  In  1883,  when  the  Brooklyn 
Bridge  was  finished,  the  Irishmen  of  New 
York  made  a  formal  protest  against  its 
being  opened  on  Queen  Victoria's  birth 
day,  lest  this  chance  occurrence  should 
be  misconstrued  into  a  compliment  to 
203 


Counter-Currents 

England.  In  1915,  a  band  in  Saint  Pat 
rick's  parade  was  halted,  and  forbidden 
to  play  "  Tipperary  "  before  Cardinal 
Farley's  residence,  lest  these  cheerful 
strains  should  be  misconstrued  into  an  in 
sult  to  Germany.  The  Reverend  Thomas 
Thornton,  speaking  to  the  Knights  of 
Columbus,  prophesied  mournfully  that 
the  time  was  at  hand  when  Catholic  vot 
ers  in  the  United  States  would  be  "  re 
duced  to  the  condition  of  tribute-paying 
aliens."  Men  smiled  when  they  heard 
this,  reflecting  that  the  Irish  officeholder 
had  not  yet  been  consigned  to  oblivion  ; 
but  the  speaker  had  seen  with  a  clear  eye 
the  marshalling  of  strange  forces,  des 
tined  to  drive  the  first  comer  from  au 
thority.  Some  weeks  later,  the  "Jewish 
Tribune  "  boasted  that  the  angry  protest 
voiced  by  Catholics  against  the  sending 
of  Signor  Ernesto  Nathan  as  commis 
sioner  to  the  San  Francisco  Fair  had 
been  "checked  in  its  infancy"  by  the 
power  of  the  Jewish  press. 
204 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

It  is  all  very  lively  and  interesting,  but 
where  does  the  American  come  in?  What 
place  is  reserved  for  him  in  the  common 
wealth  which  his  heroic  toil  and  heroic 
sacrifices  moulded  into  what  Washing 
ton  proudly  called  a  "  respectable  na 
tion  "  ?  The  truth  is  contemptuously 
flung  at  us  by  Mary  Antin,  when  she  says 
that  the  descendants  of  the  men  who 
made  America  are  not  numerous  enough 
to  "  swing  a  presidential  election."  And 
if  a  negligible  factor  now,  what  depths  of 
insignificance  will  be  their  portion  in  the 
future  ?  I  heard  told  with  glee  —  the  glee 
which  expresses  pure  American  uncon 
cern  —  a  story  of  a  public  school  in  one 
of  our  large  eastern  cities.  A  visitor  of  an 
investigating  turn  of  mind  asked  the  pu 
pils  of  various  nationalities,  Germans, 
Polacks,  Russian  Jews,  Italians,  Arme 
nians  and  Greeks,  to  stand  up  in  turn. 
When  the  long  list  was  seemingly  ex 
hausted,  he  bethought  himself  of  a  na 
tion  he  had  overlooked,  and  said,  "  Now 
205 


Counter-Currents 

let  the  American  children  arise ! "  Where 
upon  one  lone,  lorn  little  black  boy  stood 
up  to  represent  the  native-born. 

It  is  hardly  surprising  that  these  for 
eign  children,  recognizing  the  strength 
of  numbers,  should  take  exception  to 
our  time-honoured  methods  of  educa 
tion.  Little  boys  of  a  socialistic  turn  of 
mind  refuse  to  salute  the  flag,  because  it 
is  a  military  emblem.  Little  boys  of  a 
rationalistic  turn  of  mind  refuse  to  read 
the  Bible,  —  any  portion  of  the  Bible,  — 
because  its  assertions  are  unscientific. 
Little  Jewish  boys  and  girls  refuse  to 
sing  the  "  Battle  Hymn  of  the  Republic," 
because  of  its  unguarded  allusions  to 
Bethlehem  and  Calvary.  Indeed,  any 
official  recognition  of  the  Deity  offends 
the  susceptibilities  of  some  of  our  future 
citizens ;  and  their  perplexed  teachers 
are  bidden  to  eliminate  from  their  pro 
gramme  "  any  exercises  which  the  pupils 
consider  objectionable." 

A  few  years  ago  I  was  asked  to  speak 
206 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

to  a  large  class  of  immigrant  working- 
girls,  for  whose  benefit  philanthropic 
women  had  planned  evening  classes, 
dexterously  enlivened  by  a  variety  of 
entertainments.  I  was  not  sure  whether 
I  ranked  as  useful  or  amusing,  and  the 
number  of  topics  I  was  bidden  to  tact 
fully  avoid,  added  to  my  misgivings ; 
when  suddenly  all  doubts  were  dispelled 
by  the  superintendent  saying  sweetly, 
"  Oh,  Miss  Repplier,  you  were  asked  to 
speak  for  forty  minutes  ;  but  I  think  your 
address  had  better  be  cut  down  to  twenty- 
five.  The  girls  are  eager  for  their  ice 
cream." 

I  said  I  sympathized  with  so  reason 
able  an  impatience.  Even  at  my  ad 
vanced  age,  I  prefer  ice-cream  to  lec 
tures. 

"  Moi,  je  dis  que  les  bonbons 
Valent  mieux  que  la  raison." 

But  what  did  not  flatter  me  was  the  clear 

understanding  that  my  audience  listened 

to  me,  or  at  least  sat  tolerantly  for  twenty 

207 


Counter-Currents 

minutes  (I  curtailed  my  already  cur-taiPd 
cur),  because  their  reward,  in  the  shape 
of  ice-cream,  was  near  at  hand.  Just  as 
some  manufacturers  provide  baths  for 
their  employees,  and  then,  recognizing 
the  prejudices  of  the  foreign-born,  pay 
the  men  for  taking  the  baths  provided, 
so  the  good  ladies  who  had  served  me 
up  as  a  mental  refreshment  for  their  pro 
tegees,  paid  the  girls  for  being  so  oblig 
ing  as  to  listen  to  me. 

Miss  Addams  has  reproached  us  most 
unjustly  for  our  contemptuous  disregard 
of  the  immigrant ;  and  Mrs.  Percy  Penny- 
backer,  president  of  the  General  Federa 
tion  of  Women's  Clubs,  has  been  wrought 
to  such  a  pitch  of  indignation  over  what 
she  considers  our  unwarranted  supercili 
ousness,  that  she  writes  fervidly  in  the 
"  Ladies'  Home  Journal,"  "  I  love  my 
country  ;  I  adore  her ;  but  at  times  I  hope 
that  some  great  shock  may  cause  us  to 
drop  the  mantle  of  conceit  that  we  so 
proudly  wrap  about  us." 
208 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

This  well-wisher  is  in  a  fair  way  to  see 
her  desires  realized.  We  may  be  left 
naked  and  shivering  sooner  than  she 
anticipates.  If  concessions  to  the  Irish 
vote  failed  to  teach  us  humility,  —  per 
haps  because  the  Irish  have  a  winning 
way  of  overriding  barriers  ("What's 
the  Constitution  between  friends?"), — 
other  immigrants  are  less  urbane  in  strip 
ping  us  of  our  pride.  "  A  German,"  said 
Mr.  Lowell  feelingly/'  is  not  always  nice  in 
concealing  his  contempt ";  and  if  this  was 
his  attitude  in  1 868,  to  what  superb  heights 
of  disdain  has  he  risen  by  1916 !  A  Ger 
man  ambassador  has  derided  diplomatic 
conventions,  and  has  addressed  his  offi 
cial  communication,  over  the  head  of 
the  Administration,  to  German  voters  in 
the  United  States,  sparing  no  pains  to 
make  his  words  offensive.  German  offi 
cials  have  sought  to  undermine  our  neu 
trality  and  imperil  our  safety.  In  the 
opening  months  of  the  war,  a  German 
professor  at  Harvard,  who  for  years  has 
209 


Counter-Currents 

received  courteous  and  honourable  treat 
ment  at  the  hands  of  Americans,  threat 
ened  us  insolently  with  the  "  crushing 
power"  of  the  German  vote;  and  bade 
us  beware  of  the  punishment  which 
twenty-five  millions  of  citizens, "  in  whose 
homes  lives  the  memory  of  German  an 
cestors,"  would  inflict  upon  their  fellow 
citizens  of  less  august  and  martial  stock. 
The  "Frankfurter  Zeitung"  published  a 
cheering  letter  from  an  American  Con 
gressman,  assuring  a  German  corres 
pondent  that  his  countrymen  know  how 
to  make  themselves  heard,  and  express 
ing  hearty  hopes  that  Germany  would 
triumph  over  her  "perfidious"  rival. 

Is  it  any  wonder  that,  stimulated  by 
these  brilliant  examples,  the  average 
"  German- American  "  should  wax  scorn 
ful,  and  despise  his  unhyphenated  fellow 
citizens  ?  Is  it  any  wonder  that  he  should 
turn  bully,  and  threaten  us  with  his  vote, 
—  the  vote  which  was  confided  to  his 
sacred  honour  for  the  preservation  of  our 

2IO 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

country's  liberty  ?  A  circular  distributed 
before  the  Chicago  elections  in  1915 
stated  in  the  plainest  possible  words  that 
the  German's  first  allegiance  was  to  im 
perial  Germany,  and  not  to  the  Republic 
he  had  sworn  to  serve  :  — 

"  Chicago  has  a  larger  German  popu 
lation  than  any  city  in  the  world,  except 
ing  Berlin  and  Vienna ;  and  the  German-, 
Austrian-,  and  Hungarian- Americans 
should,  at  this  coming  election,  set  aside 
every  other  consideration,  and  vote  as  a 
unit  for  Robert  M.  Sweitzer.  Stand 
shoulder  to  shoulder  in  this  election,  as 
our  countrymen  in  the  trenches  and  on 
the  high  seas  are  fighting  for  the  pres 
ervation  of  our  dear  Fatherland.  The 
election  of  a  German-American  would 
be  a  fitting1  answer  to  the  defamers  of 
the  Fatherland,  would  cause  a  tremen 
dous  moral  effect  throughout  the  United 
States,  and  would  reecho  in  Germany, 
Austria,  and  Hungary." 

The  "  moral  effect "  of  this  appeal  was 
211 


Counter-Currents 

not  precisely  what  its  authors  had  antici 
pated.  Men  asked  themselves  in  bewil 
derment  and  wrath  what  the  dear  Father 
land,  any  more  than  dear  Dahomey  or 
the  beloved  Congo,  had  to  do  with  the 
Chicago  elections  ?  They  have  been  put 
ting  similar  questions  ever  since. 

Some  months  later,  the  German-Amer 
ican  Central  Society  of  Passaic,  uniting 
itself  with  the  German-American  Na 
tional  Alliance,  called  for  assistance  in 
these  glowing  words :  — 

"  Come  all  of  you  German  societies, 
German  men,  and  German  women,  so 
that  united  offensively  and  defensively 
[sum  Schutz  und  ''•  Trutz  verein\  with 
weapons  of  the  spirit,  we  may  help  our 
beloved  Germany  onward." 

"  Weapons  of  the  spirit ! "  If  this  means 
prayer  and  supplication,  the  matter  lies 
between  the  petitioner  and  his  God.  If 
it  means  exhortations,  pamphlets,  and 
platform  oratory,  the  champion  of  Ger 
many  stands  well  within  his  rights.  But 

212 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

the  next  paragraph  drops  all  figures  of 
speech,  and  states  the  real  issue  with 
abrupt  and  startling  distinctness  :  — 

"  We  ask  for  your  speedy  decision  with 
respect  to  your  acquiescence,  in  order  to 
permit  of  an  effective  participation  and 
lead  in  the  spring  campaign  of  1915." 

In  plain  words,  the  spiritual  weapon 
with  which  the  German-American  pro 
poses  to  fight  the  battle  of  Germany  is 
the  American  ballot.  When  the  franchise 
was  granted  to  him,  or  to  his  father,  or 
to  his  grandfather  (whichever  did  this 
country  the  honour  of  first  accepting  cit 
izenship),  a  solemn  oath  was  sworn. 
Allegiance  to  a  foreign  government  was 
forever  disowned  ;  fealty  to  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  was  vowed. 
He  who  uses  his  vote  to  further  the  inter 
ests  of  a  European  state  is  a  perjured 
man,  and  that  he  should  dare  to  threaten 
us  with  the  power  of  his  perjury  is  the 
height  of  arrogant  ill-doing.  That  such 
a  question  as  "  What  is  the  proportion  of 
213 


Counter-Currents 

votes  which  the  Germans  of  your  section 
control?"  should  be  asked  by  German 
agents,  and  answered  by  German  news 
papers,  affronts  our  nation's  honour,  soils 
a  sacred  trust  by  ill-usage,  and  tears  our 
neutrality  to  rags. 

When  the  Lusitania  was  sunk,  and  the 
horror  of  the  deed  shamed  all  Christen 
dom,  save  only  those  strange  residents 
of  Berlin  who  received  the  news  with 
"enthusiasm,"  and  " joyful  pride,"  the 
first  word  tactfully  whispered  in  our  ear 
was  that,  while  we  might  regret  the 
drowning  of  Americans,  we  were  impo 
tent  to  resent  it.  And  this  impotence  was 
to  be  a  concession  to  the  foreign  vote. 
God  only  knows  of  what  material  Ger 
many  thought  we  were  made,  —  putty, 
or  gutta-percha,  or  sun-baked  mud? 
Certainly  not  of  flesh  and  blood.  Cer 
tainly  not  with  hearts  to  bleed,  or  souls  to 
burn.  Every  comment  vouchsafed  by  the 
German  press  placed  us  in  the  catalogue 
of  worms  warranted  not  to  turn. 
214 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

The  contempt  which  the  German  "  is 
not  always  nice  in  concealing  "  shines 
with  a  chastened  lustre  in  the  words  and 
deeds  of  other  foreign -born  citizens. 
They  accept  the  vote  which  we  enthusi 
astically  press  upon  them,  regarding  it 
as  an  asset,  sometimes  of  marketable 
value,  sometimes  serving  a  stronger  and 
more  enduring  purpose,  always  as  an  es 
teemed  protection  against  the  military 
service  exacted  by  their  own  govern 
ments.  They  do  not  come  to  us  "  with 
gifts  in  their  hands,"  —  to  quote  Mr. 
Lowell.  They  are  for  the  most  part  desti 
tute,  not  only  of  money,  but  of  knowledge, 
of  useful  attainments,  of  any  serviceable 
mental  equipment.  Mr.  Edward  Als worth 
Ross,  who  is  not  without  experience,  con 
fesses  ruefully  that  the  immigrant  seldom 
brings  in  his  intellectual  baggage  any 
thing  of  use  to  us ;  and  that  the  admis 
sion  into  our  electorate  of  "backward 
men  "  —  men  whose  mental,  moral,  and 
physical  standards  are  lower  than  our 
215 


Counter-Currents 

own  —  must  inevitably  retard  our  social 
progress,  and  thrust  us  behind  the  more 
uniformly  civilized  nations  of  the  world. 
Meditating  on  these  disagreeable  facts, 
we  find  ourselves  confronted  by  senti 
mentalists  who  say  that  if  we  would  only 
be  kind  and  brotherly,  the  sloping  fore 
heads  would  grow  high,  the  narrow 
shoulders  broad,  the  Pole  would  become 
peaceable,  the  Greek  honest,  the  Slav 
clean,  the  Sicilian  would  give  up  mur 
der  as  a  pastime,  the  Jew  would  lose  his 
"  monstrous  love  of  gain."  Enthusiastic 
promoters  of  the  "  National  American 
ization  Committee"  — a  crusade  full  of 
promise  for  the  future  —  have  talked  to 
us  so  much  and  so  sternly  about  our  duty 
to  the  immigrant,  our  neglect  of  the  im 
migrant,  our  debt  to  the  immigrant,  our 
need  of  the  immigrant,  that  we  have  been 
no  less  humiliated  than  bewildered  by 
their  eloquence.  Mr.  Roosevelt  alone,  of 
all  their  orators,  has  had  the  hardihood 
to  say  bluntly  that  citizenship  implies 
216 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

service  as  well  as  protection ;  that  the 
debt  contracted  by  the  citizen  to  the  state 
is  as  binding  as  that  contracted  by  the 
state  to  the  citizen ;  that  a  voter  who  can 
not  speak  English  is  an  absurdity  no  less 
than  a  peril ;  and  that  all  who  seek  the 
franchise  should  be  compelled  to  accept 
without  demur  our  laws,  our  language, 
our  national  policy,  our  requisitions  civil 
and  military.  This  is  what  naturalization 
implies. 

That  saving  phrase,  "  It  is  the  law,'* 
which  made  possible  the  civilization  of 
Rome,  and  which  has  been  the  founda 
tion  of  all  great  civilizations  before  and 
since,  has  little  weight  or  sanctity  for  our 
immigrants.  They  resent  legal  interfer 
ence,  especially  the  punishment  of  crime, 
in  a  very  spirited  fashion.  When  Mr. 
Samuel  Gompers  defended  the  McNa- 
maras  and  their  "social  war"  murders 
before  a  subcommittee  of  the  United 
States  Senate,  he  said  with  feeling  that 
the  mere  fact  that  these  men  should  have 
217 


Counter- Currents 

come  to  look  upon  dynamite  as  the  only 
defence  left  them  against  the  tyranny  of 
capital,  was  a  "  terrible  charge  against 
society."  It  was  an  appeal  very  pleas 
antly  suggestive  of  the  highwayman, 
who,  having  attacked  and  robbed  Lord 
Derby  and  Mr.  Grenville,  said  reproach 
fully  to  his  victims,  "What  scoundrels  you 
must  be  to  fire  at  a  gentleman  who  risks 
his  life  upon  the  road  ! " 

If  Cicero  lowered  his  voice  when  he 
spoke  of  the  Jews,  fearing  the  enmity 
of  this  strong  and  clannish  people,  the 
American,  who  is  far  from  enjoying  Cic 
ero's  prestige,  must  be  doubly  cautious 
lest  he  give  offence.  Yet  surely,  if  there 
is  an  immigrant  who  owes  us  everything, 
it  is  the  Jew.  Even  our  spasmodic  and 
utterly  futile  efforts  to  restrict  immigra 
tion  always  leave  him  a  loophole  of  es 
cape,  because  he  controls  the  National 
Liberal  Immigration  League. 

It  is  our  custom  to  assume  that  the 
Russian  Jew  is  invariably  a  fugitive  from 
218 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

religious  persecution,  and  we  liken  him 
in  this  regard  to  the  best  and  noblest  of 
our  early  settlers.  But  the  Puritan,  the 
Quaker,  and  the  Huguenot  sacrificed 
temporal  well-being  for  liberty  of  con 
science.  They  left  conditions  of  comfort, 
and  the  benefits  of  a  high  civilization,  to 
develop  the  resources  of  a  virgin  land, 
and  build  for  themselves  homes  in  the 
wilderness.  They  practised  the  stern  vir 
tues  of  courage,  fortitude,  and  a  most 
splendid  industry.  Had  the  Pilgrim  Fa 
thers  been  met  on  Plymouth  Rock  by 
immigration  officials ;  had  their  children 
been  placed  immediately  in  good  free 
schools,  and  given  the  care  of  doctors, 
dentists,  and  nurses ;  had  they  found 
themselves  in  infinitely  better  circum 
stances  than  they  had  ever  enjoyed  in 
England,  indulging  in  undreamed-of 
luxuries,  and  taught  by  kind-hearted 
philanthropists,  —  what  pioneer  virtues 
would  they  have  developed,  what  sons 
would  they  have  bred,  what  honours 
219 


Counter-Currents 

would  history  have  accorded  them?  If 
our  early  settlers  were  masterful,  they 
earned  the  right  to  mastery,  and  the 
price  they  paid  for  it  was  endurance.  To 
the  sacrifices  which  they  made,  to  their 
high  courage  and  heroic  labours,  we  owe 
law,  liberty,  and  well-being. 

It  is  because  the  Jew  has  received 
from  us  so  much,  and  given  us  so  little, 
that  his  masterfulness  affronts  our  sense 
of  decency.  When  the  Jewish  Anti-Def 
amation  League  boasts  —  perhaps  with 
out  warranty  —  that  it  has  taken  "the 
first  and  most  important  step  in  exclud 
ing  the  '  Merchant  of  Venice '  from  the 
curriculum  of  the  grammar  and  high 
schools  of  this  country,  by  having  the 
play  removed  from  the  list  of  require 
ments  laid  down  by  the  Collegiate  En 
trance  Requirement  Board,"  we  feel  that 
a  joke  has  been  carried  too  far.  Nobody 
can  seriously  associate  the  "  Merchant  of 
Venice  "  with  a  defamation  of  the  Jew 
ish  character.  Heaven  knows,  the  part 
220 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

played  by  Christians  in  that  immortal 
drama  has  never  left  us  puffed  up  with 
pride.  Nevertheless,  being  less  thin- 
skinned,  or  perhaps  more  sure  of  our 
selves,  we  have  grown  attached  to  the 
play,  and  should  not  relish  its  banish 
ment  by  the  decree  of  aliens. 

And  what  if  our  Italian  immigrants 
should  take  exception  to  the  character  of 
lago,  and  demand  that  " Othello"  should 
be  excluded  from  the  schools  ?  What  if 
the  Sicilians  should  find  themselves 
wounded  in  spirit  by  the  behaviour  of 
Leontes  (compared  with  whom  Shylock 
and  lago  are  gentlemen),  and  deny  us 
the  "  Winter's  Tale  "  ?  What  if  the  Bohe 
mians  (a  fast-increasing  body  of  voters) 
should  complain  that  their  peddlers  are 
honest  men,  shamefully  slandered  by  the 
rogueries  of  Autolycus  ?  If  all  our  foreign 
citizens  become  in  turn  as  sensitive  as 
Hebrews,  we  may  find  ourselves  reduced 
to  the  fairy  scenes  from  the  "  Tempest" 
and  the  "  Midsummer  Night's  Dream." 
221 


Counter-Currents 

Another  victory  claimed  by  the  "Jew 
ish  Tribune  "  is  that  the  Associated  Press 
has  been  made  to  feel  that  the  words 
"  Jew  "  and  "  Hebrew  "  should  be  avoided 
in  connection  with  criminals.  "The  reli 
gious  denomination  of  malefactors  should 
not  be  referred  to.  It  is  now  generally 
understood  by  newspapers  that  it  is  just 
as  improper  to  describe  a  malefactor  by 
stating  that  he  is  a  Jew,  as  it  would  be 
to  describe  such  a  person  as  a  Catholic 
or  a  Methodist." 

Does  this  mean  that  the  Jew  no  longer 
claims  any  racial  distinction,  that  he  has 
no  genealogy,  no  pedigree,  no  place  in 
history,  nothing  by  which  he  may  be 
classified  but  church  membership  ?  Is  the 
simple  dictionary  definition,  "Jew.  An 
Israelite ;  a  person  of  the  Hebrew  race," 
without  any  significance  ?  We  may  call 
a  Greek  pickpocket  a  Greek,  or  a  Polish 
rioter  a  Pole,  or  an  Italian  murderer  an 
Italian ;  but  we  may  not  call  a  Jewish 
procurer  a  Jew,  because  that  word  re- 
222 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

fers  only  to  his  attendance  at  the  syna 
gogue.  May  we  then  speak  of  a  scholar, 
a  musician,  a  scientist,  a  philanthropist, 
as  a  Jew  ?  Only  —  by  this  ruling  —  as  we 
might  speak  of  one  as  a  Catholic  or  a 
Methodist,  only  in  reference  to  his  "reli 
gious  denomination."  If  he  chances  to  be 
unsectarian,  then,  as  he  is  also  raceless,  he 
cannot  be  called  anything  at  all.  If  the 
word  "  Jew  "  be  out  of  place  in  the  police 
courts,  it  is  equally  out  of  place  in  colleges, 
learned  societies,  and  encyclopaedias. 

It  will  be  remembered  that,  after  the 
publication  of "  Oliver  Twist,"  a  bitter  pro 
test  was  raised  by  English  Jews  against 
the  character  of  Fagin,  or  rather  against 
the  fact  that  the  merry  old  gentleman  is 
alluded  to  frequently  as  a  Jew.  The  com 
plainants  said  —  what  the  "Jewish  Trib 
une"  now  says  —  that  the  use  of  the 
word  as  an  indicatory  substantive  was  an 
insult  to  their  creed.  Dickens,  who  had 
never  thought  of  Fagin  as  having  any 
creed,  who  had  never  associated  him 
223 


Counter-Currents 

with  religious  observances  of  any  kind, 
was  puzzled  and  pained  at  having  un 
wittingly  given  offence;  and  strove  to 
make  clear  that,  when  he  said  "  Jew,"  he 
meant  an  Israelite,  and  not  a  frequenter  of 
the  synagogue.  Years  afterward  he  made 
a  peace-offering  in  the  person  of  Riah, 
who  plays  the  part  of  a  good  Samaritan 
in  "  Our  Mutual  Friend,"  and  who  is  to 
Fagin  as  skimmed  milk  to  brandy. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  whenever  any 
strong  and  noble  emotion  grips  our  Jew 
ish  citizens,  they  speedily  forget  their 
antipathy  to  the  word  "  Jew."  For  years 
past  they  have  objected  to  the  use  of  the 
word  by  charitable  associations,  even 
when  there  was  no  hint  of  criminality  to 
shame  it.  They  have  asked  that  visiting 
nurses  should  not  report  service  to  Jew 
ish  homes,  or  Jewish  patients.  Homes 
and  patients  should  be  placed  upon  rec 
ord  as  Russian  or  Polish,  —  whichever 
the  case  might  be.  The  race  was  specifi 
cally  denied.  The  Semite  was  sunk  in  the 
224 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

Slav.  But  when  there  came  a  cry  for  help 
from  the  war-stricken  Jews  of  Europe, 
the  Jews  of  America  responded  with  ex 
alted  enthusiasm.  Jew  called  to  Jew,  and 
the  great  tie  of  kindred  asserted  itself 
supremely.  It  was  not  as  co-religionists, 
but  as  brothers-in-blood,  that  New  York 
millionaires,  who  had  never  entered  a 
synagogue,  stretched  out  their  hands  in 
aid.  Women  stripped  off  their  jewels, 
and  offered  this  glittering  tribute,  as  they 
might  have  done  in  the  fighting  days  of 
Israel.  Young  and  old,  rich  and  poor, 
gave  with  unstinted  compassion.  Gen 
tiles  contributed  generously  to  the  fund, 
and  Christian  churches  asked  the  coop 
eration  of  Christian  congregations.  To 
some  Jews  the  thought  must  have  oc 
curred  that  America  had  not  dealt  harshly 
by  her  immigrants,  when  they  could  com 
mand  millions  for  their  impoverished 
brethren  in  Europe. 

Therefore  it  behooves  the  men  and 
women  who  have  been  well  received,  and 
225 


Counter-Currents 

who  have  responded  ably  to  the  oppor 
tunities  offered  them  by  our  country's 
superb  liberality,  to  be  a  little  more  leni 
ent  to  our  shortcomings.  We  confess 
them  readily  enough ;  but  we  feel  that 
those  whom  we  have  befriended  should 
not  be  the  ones  to  dwell  upon  them  with 
too  much  gusto.  There  are  situations  in 
the  world  which  imperiously  dictate  ur 
banity.  "Steadily  as  I  worked  to  win 
America,"  writes  Mary  Antin,  "America 
advanced  to  lie  at  my  feet,"  — a  poodle- 
like  attitude  which  ought  to  disarm  criti 
cism.  When  this  clever  young  woman 
tells  us  that  she  "took  possession  of  Bea 
con  Street"  (a  goodly  heritage),  and 
there  "drank  afternoon  tea  with  gentle 
ladies  whose  hands  were  as  delicate  as 
their  porcelain  cups,"  we  feel  well  con 
tent  at  this  swift  recognition  of  energy 
and  ability.  It  is  not  the  first  time  such 
pleasant  things  have  happened,  and  it 
will  not  be  the  last.  But  why  should  the 
recipient  of  so  much  attention  be  the  one 
226 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

to  scold  us  harshly,  to  rail  at  conditions 
she  imperfectly  understands,  to  reproach 
us  for  our  ill-mannered  children  (whom  we 
fear  she  must  have  met  in  Beacon  Street), 
our  slackness  in  duty,  our  failure  to  ob 
serve  the  precepts  and  fulfil  the  inten 
tions  of  those  pioneers  whom  she  kindly, 
but  confusedly,  calls  "  our  forefathers." 

It  is  the  hopeless  old  story  of  oppos 
ing  races,  of  people  unable  to  understand 
one  another  because  they  have  no  mu 
tual  standards,  no  common  denominator. 
Mary  Antin  is  perfectly  sincere,  and,  from 
her  point  of  view,  justified,  in  bidding 
us  remember  that  among  the  Harrison 
Avenue  tenants,  "who  pitch  rubbish 
through  their  windows,"  was  the  grocer 
whose  kindness  helped  to  keep  her  at 
school.  And  she  adds  with  sublime  be 
cause  unconscious  egotism,  "  Let  the  City 
Fathers  strike  the  balance."  But  Eliza 
beth  Robins  Pennell  is  also  sincere,  and, 
from  her  point  of  view,  justified,  when 
she  says  with  exceeding  bitterness  that, 
227 


Counter-Currents 

if  Philadelphia  blossomed  like  the  rose 
with  Mary  Antins,  the  city  would  be  but 
ill  repaid  for  the  degradation  of  her  nobl 
old  streets,  now  transformed  into  foul  and 
filthy  slums.  Dirt  is  a  valuable  asset  in 
the  immigrant's  hands.  With  its  help 
he  drives  away  decent  neighbours,  and 
brings  property  down  to  his  level  and 
his  purse.  The  ill-fated  Philadelphian  is 
literally  pushed  out  of  his  home  —  the 
only  place,  sighs  Mrs.  Pennell,  where  he 
wants  to  live  —  by  conditions  which  he 
is  unable  to  avert,  and  unwilling,  as  well 
as  unfitted,  to  endure. 

It  is  part  of  the  unreality  of  modern 
sentimentalism  that  we  should  have  a 
strong  sense  of  duty  toward  all  the  na 
tions  of  the  world  except  our  own.  We 
see  plainly  what  we  owe  to  the  Magyar 
and  the  Levantine,  but  we  have  no  con 
cern  for  the  Virginian  or  the  Pennsyl- 
vanian.  The  capitalist  and  the  sentimen 
talist  play  into  each  other's  hands,  and 
neither  takes  thought  of  our  country's 
228 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

irrational  present  and  imperilled  future. 
We  go  on  keeping  a  u  civic  kindergar 
ten"  for  backward  aliens,  and  we  go  on 
mutely  suffering  reproach  for  not  ad 
vancing  our  pupils  more  rapidly.  In  the 
industrial  town  of  New  Britain,  Connecti 
cut,  the  foreign  population  is  nine  times 
greater  than  the  native  population,  which 
is  a  hideous  thing  to  contemplate.  Twenty 
nationalities  are  represented,  eighteen 
languages  are  spoken.  The  handful  of 
Americans,  who  are  supposed  to  leaven 
this  heavy  and  heterogeneous  mass,  take 
their  duties  very  seriously.  Schools,  play 
grounds,  clubs,  night-classes,  vacation 
classes,  gymnasiums,  visiting  nurses, 
milk-stations,  charitable  organizations, 
a  city  mission  with  numerous  interpreters, 
a  free  library  with  books  and  newspapers 
in  divers  tongues,  all  the  leavening  ma 
chinery  is  kept  in  active  service  for  the 
hard  task  of  civic  betterment.  Yet  it  was 
in  New  Britain  that  an  immigrant  was 
found  who,  after  sixteen  years'  residence 
229 


Counter-Currents 

in  the  United  States,  was  not  aware  that 
he  might,  if  he  chose,  become  a  citizen ; 
and  this  incident,  Mary  Antin  considers 
a  heavy  indictment  against  the  com 
munity.  "It  makes  a  sensitive  Ameri 
can,"  she  writes  passionately,  "choke 
with  indignation." 

It  makes  an  exasperated  American 
choke  with  angry  laughter  to  have  the 
case  put  that  way.  The  ballot  is  not 
necessary  to  safe,  decent,  and  prosperous 
living.  A  good  many  millions  of  women 
have  made  shift  to  live  safely,  decently, 
and  prosperously  without  it.  If  it  is  to  be 
regarded  as  an  asset  to  the  immigrant, 
then  his  own  friends,  his  own  people,  the 
voters  of  his  own  race,  might  (in  the  wel 
come  absence  of  political  bosses)  be  the 
ones  to  press  it  upon  his  acceptance.  If 
it  be  considered  as  a  safeguard  for  the 
Republic,  we  cannot  but  feel  that  this 
highly  intelligent  alien  might  be  spared 
permanently  from  the  electorate. 

For  the  first  nine  months  of  the  war, 
230 


The  Modest  Immigrant 

when  Italy's  neutrality  swayed  in  the 
conflicting  currents  of  national  pride  and 
national  precaution,  and  no  one  could 
foretell  what  the  end  would  be,  a  young 
Italian  gardener,  employed  near  Philadel 
phia,  suffered  dismal  doubts  concerning 
the  expediency  of  naturalization.  He  was 
a  frugal  person,  devoid  of  high  political 
instincts.  He  did  not  covet  a  vote  to  sell, 
and  he  did  not  want  to  pay  the  modest 
cost  of  becoming  an  American  citizen. 
He  preferred  keeping  his  money  and 
staying  what  he  was,  provided  always 
that  Italy  remained  at  peace.  But  the 
prospect  of  Italy's  going  to  war  disposed 
him  to  look  favourably  upon  the  safe 
guard  of  a  foreign  allegiance.  Being  un 
able  to  decipher  the  newspapers,  he  made 
anxious  inquiries  every  morning.  If  the 
headlines  read,  "  Italy  unlikely  to  aban 
don  attitude  of  neutrality,"  he  settled 
down  contentedly  to  his  day's  work.  If  the 
headlines  read,  "Austria  refuses  guar 
antee.  Italy  sending  troops  to  northern 
231 


Counter-Currents 

frontier,"  he  became  once  more  a  prey 
to  indecision.  Then  came  the  May  days 
when  doubt  was  turned  to  certainty.  Italy, 
long  straining  at  the  leash,  plunged  into 
the  conflict.  Thousands  of  Italians  in  the 
United  States  stood  ready  to  fight  for 
their  country,  to  give  back  to  her,  if  need 
be,  the  lives  which  they  might  have  held 
safe.  But  one  peace-loving  gardener  hur 
ried  to  Philadelphia,  applied  for  his  natu 
ralization  papers,  failed  utterly  to  pass  the 
casual  tests  which  would  have  secured 
them,  grew  frightened  and  demoralized 
by  failure,  appealed  desperately  to  his 
employer,  and,  with  a  little  timely  aid, 
was  pitched  shivering  into  citizenship. 

If  ever  there  comes  a  cloud  between 
the  United  States  and  Italy,  this  doughty 
"Italian- American"  will,  I  am  sure,  be 
found  fighting  with  "weapons  of  the 
spirit"  for  the  welfare  of  his  adored  and 
endangered  "  Fatherland." 


Waiting 

IN  the  most  esteemed  of  his  advisory 
poems,  Mr.  Longfellow  recommends 
his  readers  to  be  "up  and  doing," 
and  at  the  same  time  learn  "to  labour 
and  to  wait."  Having,  all  of  us,  imbibed 
these  sentiments  in  their  harmonious  set 
ting  when  we  were  at  school,  we  have, 
all  of  us,  endeavoured  for  many  months 
to  put  such  conflicting  precepts  into  prac 
tice.  Mr.  Longfellow,  it  will  be  remem 
bered,  gave  precedence  to  his  "  up  and 
doing"  line ;  but  this  may  have  been  due 
to  the  exigencies' of  verse.  We  began  by 
waiting,  and  we  waited  long.  Our  de 
liberation  has  seemed  to  border  on  pa 
ralysis.  But  back  of  this  superhuman  pa 
tience  —  rewarded  by  repeated  insult  and 
repeated  in  jury — was  a  toughening  reso 
lution  which  snatched  from  insult  and  in 
jury  the  bitter  fruit  of  knowledge.  We  are 
233 


Counter-Currents 

emerging  from  this  period  of  suspense  a 
sadder  and  a  wiser  people,  keenly  aware 
of  dangers  which,  a  year  ago,  seemed 
negligible,  fully  determined  to  front  such 
dangers  with  courage  and  with  under 
standing. 

When  Germany  struck  her  first  blow  at 
Belgium,  the  neutral  nations  silently  ac 
quiesced  in  this  breach  of  good  faith.  The 
burning  of  Louvain,  the  destruction  of  the 
Cathedral  of  Rheims,  were  but  the  first 
fruits  of  this  sinister  silence.  The  sinking 
of  the  Lusitania  followed  in  the  orderly 
sequence  of  events.  It  was  a  deliberate 
expression  of  defiance  and  contempt,  a 
gauntlet  thrown  to  the  world.  The  lives 
it  cost,  the  innocence  and  helplessness  of 
the  drowned  passengers,  their  number 
and  their  nationalities,  all  combined  to 
make  this  novelty  in  warfare  exactly  what 
Germany  meant  it  to  be.  We  Ameri 
cans  had  tried  (and  it  had  been  hard 
work)  to  bear  tranquilly  the  misfortunes 
of  others.  Now  let  us  apply  our  philos- 
234 


Waiting 

ophy  to  ourselves.  Herr  Erich  von  Salz- 
mann  voiced  the  sentiment  of  his  coun 
trymen  when  he  said  in  the  Berlin  "  Lokal 
Anzeiger": — 

"  The  Lusitania  is  no  more.  Only  those 
who  have  travelled  by  sea  can  appreciate 
the  extraordinary  impression  which  this 
news  will  make  all  over  the  world.  .  .  . 
The  fact  that  it  was  we  Germans  who 
destroyed  this  ship  must  make  us  proud 
of  ourselves.  The  Lusitania  case  will  ob 
tain  for  us  more  respect  than  a  hundred 
battles  won  on  land." 

The  severing  of  fear  from  respect  is  a 
subtlety  which  has  not  penetrated  the 
mind  of  the  Prussian.  He  recognizes  no 
such  distinction,  because  his  doctrine  of 
efficiency  embraces  the  doctrine  of  fright- 
fulness.  His  Kultur  is  free  from  any 
ethical  bias.  The  fact  that  we  may  greatly 
fear  lust,  cruelty,  and  other  forms  of  vio 
lence,  without  in  the  least  respecting  these 
qualities,  has  no  significance  for  him. 
He  frankly  does  not  care.  If  he  can  teach 
235 


Counter-Currents 

the  French,  the  English,  or  the  Ameri 
cans  to  fear  him  in  1916,  as  he  taught 
the  Chinese  to  fear  him  in  1900,  and  by 
the  same  methods,  he  will  be  well  con 
tent. 

But  was  it  fear  which  paralyzed  us 
when  we  heard  that  American  women 
and  children  had  been  sacrificed  as  ruth 
lessly  as  were  the  Chinese  women  and 
children  sixteen  years  ago?  The  fashion 
in  which  American  gentlemen  died  on  the 
Lusitania,  as  on  the  Titanic,  may  well 
acquit  us  of  any  charge  of  cowardice. 
Whatever  "respect"  ensued  from  that 
pitiless  massacre  was  won  by  the  victims, 
not  by  the  perpetrators  thereof.  Why, 
then,  when  the  news  was  brought,  did 
we  feverishly  urge  one  another  to  "  keep 
calm"?  Why  did  we  chatter  day  after 
day  about  "  rocking  the  boat,"  as  though 
unaware  that  the  blow  which  sent  us  reel 
ing  and  quivering  was  struck  by  a  foreign 
hand?  Why  did  we  let  pass  the  supreme 
moment  of  action,  and  settle  down  to 
236 


Waiting 

months  of  controversy?  And  what  have 
we  gained  by  delay? 

All  these  questions  have  been  an 
swered  many  times  to  the  satisfaction  and 
dissatisfaction  of  the  querists.  If  we  had 
severed  diplomatic  and  commercial  rela 
tions  with  Germany,  she  might  have  de 
clared  war,  and  we  did  not  want  to  fight ; 
not,  at  least,  on  such  provocation  as  she 
had  given  us,  and  with  such  ships  and 
munitions  as  we  could  command.  There 
was  a  well-founded  conviction  that  no 
step  involving  the  safety  of  the  nation 
should  be  taken  impetuously,  or  under 
the  influence  of  resentment,  or  without 
discreet  calculation  of  ways  and  means. 
There  was  also  a  rational  hope  that  Ger 
many  might  be  induced  to  disavow  the 
savage  slaughter  of  noncombatants,  and 
promise  redress.  And  always  in  the 
background  of  our  consciousness  was  a 
lurking  hope  that  the  pen  would  prove 
mightier  than  the  sword.  The  copy 
books  say  that  it  is  mightier,  and  where 
237 


Counter-Currents 

shall  we  look  for  wisdom,  if  not  to  the 
counsels  of  the  copy-book ! 

The  correspondence  which  ensued  be 
tween  the  Administration  in  Washing 
ton  and  the  Imperial  Government  in 
Berlin  was  so  remarkable  that  it  may  well 
serve  as  a  model  for  generations  yet  un 
born.  If  the  Polite  Letter- Writer  ever 
broadens  its  sphere  to  embrace  diplo 
matic  relations,  it  could  not  do  better 
than  reprint  these  admirable  specimens 
of  what  was  thought  to  be  a  lost  art. 
The  urbanity  and  firmness  of  each  Amer 
ican  note  filled  us  with  justifiable  pride. 
Also  with  a  less  justifiable  elation,  which 
was  always  dissipated  by  the  arrival  of 
a  German  note,  equally  urbane  and 
equally  firm.  Germany  was  more  than 
willing  to  state  at  length  and  at  leisure 
her  reasons  for  sinking  merchant  ships, 
provided  she  could  safely  and  uninter 
ruptedly  continue  the  practice.  Such 
warfare  she  defined  in  her  note  of  July 
9  as  a  "  sacred  duty."  "  If  the  Imperial 
238 


Waiting 

Government  were  derelict  in  these  duties, 
it  would  be  guilty  before  God  and  his 
tory  of  the  violation  of  those  principles 
of  highest  humanity  which  are  the  foun 
dation  of  every  national  existence." 

The  German  is  certainly  at  home  in 
Zion.  If  his  god  be  a  trifle  exacting  in 
the  matter  of  human  sacrifice,  he  is 
otherwise  the  most  pliant  and  accom 
modating  of  deities.  It  is  one  of  our 
many  disadvantages  that  we  have  no 
American  god.  Only  the  Divinity,  whose 
awful  name  is,  by  comment  consent, 
omitted  from  diplomatic  correspondence. 

When  our  hopes  sank  lowest  and  our 
hearts  burned  hottest,  the  note  of  Sep 
tember  i,  1915,  brought  its  welcome  mes 
sage  of  concession.  It  is  as  little  worth 
while  to  analyze  the  motives  which 
prompted  this  change  of  front  as  it  is 
worth  while  to  speculate  upon  its  sincer 
ity.  In  the  light  of  subsequent  events,  we 
are  painfully  aware  that  our  satisfaction 
was  excessive,  our  self-congratulations 
239 


Counter-Currents 

unwarranted,  our  jubilant  editorials  a 
trifle  overcharged.  But  at  the  time  we 
believed  what  we  wanted  to  believe,  we 
joyfully  assumed  that  Germany  had  been 
converted  to  the  ways  of  humanity, 
and  that  she  stood  ready  to  anger  her 
own  people  for  the  sake  of  conciliating 
ours. 

Why  the  submarine  warfare  should 
have  so  endeared  itself  to  the  Teuton 
heart  is  a  problem  for  psychologists  to 
elucidate.  There  is  little  about  it  to  evoke 
a  generous  enthusiasm.  It  lacks  heroic 
qualities.  The  singularly  loathsome  song 
which  celebrated  the  sinking  of  the  Lusi- 
tania  is  as  remote  in  spirit  from  such 
brave  verse  as  "Admirals  All,"  as  those 
old  sea-dogs  were  remote  in  spirit  from 
the  foul  work  of  Von  Tirpitz.  No  flight  of 
fancy  can  conceive  of  Nelson  counting  up 
the  women  and  children  he  had  drowned. 
And  because  the  whole  wretched  busi 
ness  sickened  as  well  as  affronted  us,  we 
hailed  with  unutterable  relief  any  modi- 
240 


Waiting 


fication  of  its  violence.  For  the  first  time 
in  many  months  our  souls  were  lightened 
of  their  load.  We  felt  calm  enough  to 
review  the  summer  of  suspense,  and  to 
ask  ourselves  sincerely  and  soberly  what 
were  the  lessons  that  it  had  taught  us. 

The  agitation  produced  in  this  coun 
try  by  a  terrible  —  and  to  us  unexpected 
— European  war  was  intensified  in  the 
spring  of  1915  by  the  discovery  that  we 
were  not  so  immune  as  we  thought  our 
selves.  It  dawned  slowly  on  men's  minds 
that  the  sacrifice  of  the  nation's  honour 
might  not  after  all  secure  the  nation's 
safety ;  and  this  disagreeable  doubt  im 
pelled  us  to  the  still  more  disagreeable 
consideration  of  our  inadequate  coast  de 
fences.  Then  and  then  only  were  we 
made  aware  of  the  chaotic  confusion 
which  reigned  in  the  minds  of  our  vast 
and  unassimilated  population.  Then  and 
then  only  did  we  understand  that  perils 
from  without  —  remote  and  ascertainable 
—  were  brought  close  and  rendered  hid- 
241 


Counter-Currents 

eously  obscure  by  shameful  cooperation 
from  within. 

Ten  years  ago,  two  years  ago,  we 
should  have  laughed  to  scorn  the  sug 
gestion  that  any  body  of  American  citi 
zens  —  no  matter  what  their  lineage  — 
would  be  disloyal  to  the  State.  A  belief 
in  the  integrity  of  citizenship  was  the  first 
article  of  our  faith.  To-day,  the  German- 
American  openly  disavows  all  pretence 
of  loyalty,  and  says  as  plainly  and  as  pub 
licly  as  he  can  that  he  will  be  betrayed 
into  no  conflict  with  his  "  mother  coun 
try,"  unless  the  United  States  be  actually 
invaded, — by  which  time  the  rest  of  us 
would  feel  ourselves  a  trifle  insecure.  It 
is  strange  that  the  men  who,  had  they 
remained  in  their  mother  country  (a 
choice  which  was  always  open  to  them), 
would  never  have  ventured  a  protest 
against  Germany's  aggressive  warfare, 
should  here  be  so  stoutly  contumacious. 
What  would  have  happened  to  the  pres 
ident  of  the  New  York  State  German- 
242 


Waiting 

American  Alliance,  had  he  lived  in  Ber 
lin  instead  of  in  Brooklyn,  and  had  he 
spoken  of  the  Kaiser  as  he  dared  to 
speak  of  Mr.  Wilson  !  The  license  which 
the  German  (muzzled  tightly  in  Ger 
many)  permits  himself  in  the  United 
States,  is  not  unlike  the  license  which  the 
newly  emancipated  slaves  in  the  South 
mistook  for  liberty  when  the  Civil  War 
was  ended.  It  takes  as  many  genera 
tions  to  make  a  freeman  as  it  does  to 
make  a  gentleman. 

The  inevitable  result  of  this  outspoken 
disloyalty  at  home  was  a  determined  and 
very  hurtful  pressure  from  abroad.  A  big, 
careless,  self-confident  nation  is  an  easy 
prey ;  and  while  we  waited,  not  very  watch 
fully,  Germany  seized  many  chances  to 
hit  us  below  the  belt,  and  hit  us  hard. 
The  fomenting  of  strikes  and  labour  agi 
tation  ;  the  threatening  of  German  work 
men  employed  in  American  factories; 
the  misuse  of  the  radio  service  at  Sayville, 
and  the  continued  sending  of  code  mes- 
243 


Counter-Currents 

sages  ;  the  affidavits  of  Gustav  Stahl  be 
fore  the  Federal  Grand  Jury,  and  his 
assisted  flight  from  the  authorities  ;  the 
forged  American  passports  with  which 
German  spies  wander  over  England  and 
the  Continent ;  the  diplomatic  indiscre 
tions  —  to  put  it  mildly  —  of  German 
and  Austrian  ambassadors  ;  the  mysteri 
ous  activities  of  German  officials,  which 
we  were  too  inexperienced  to  understand ; 
—  all  these  things  filled  us  with  anger 
and  alarm.  We  could  not  resort  to  the 
simple  measures  of  Italians,  who  in  Phil 
adelphia  stoned  the  agents  whom  they 
found  trying  to  hold  back  reservists 
about  to  sail  for  Italy.  We  bore  each 
fresh  affront  as  though  inured  to  provo 
cation  ;  but  we  bore  it  understandingly, 
and  with  deep  resentment.  If  ever  our 
temper  snaps  beneath  the  strain,  the  an 
ger  so  slow  to  ignite  will  be  equally  hard 
to  extinguish. 

Playing  consciously  or  unconsciously 
into  the  hands  of  Germany  are  the  pac- 
244 


Waiting 

ifists,  —  a  compact  body  of  men  and 
women,  visibly  strengthened  by  months 
of  indecision.  Their  methods  may  at 
times  be  laughable,  but  we  cannot  afford 
to  laugh.  I  do  not  class  under  this  head 
any  of  the  so-called  "  Neutrality  Leagues,'* 
and  "  National  Peace  Councils,"  which 
aim  at  securing  a  German  victory  by  with 
holding  munitions  from  the  Allies.  Such 
"  neutrals  "  are  all  partisans  parading  un 
der  a  borrowed  name,  which  they  have 
rendered  meaningless.  They  have  a  great 
deal  of  money  to  spend  on  advertise 
ments,  and  posters,  and  mass  meetings. 
They  can  any  day,  in  any  town,  fill  a 
hall  with  German  sympathizers  who  are 
all  of  one  mind  concerning  the  duty  of 
noncombatants.  Their  leaders  are  well 
aware  that  law  and  usage  permit,  and 
have  long  permitted,  to  neutral  nations 
the  sale  of  munitions  to  belligerents. 
Their  followers  for  the  most  part  know 
this  too.  But  it  seems  worth  while  to 
profess  ignorance.  Something  can  al- 
245 


Counter-Currents 

ways  be  accomplished  by  agitation,  were 
it  only  a  murderous  attack  on  a  finan 
cier,  or  the  smuggling  of  dynamite  into 
the  hold  of  a  cargo  boat. 

But  in  reckoning  up  our  perils,  it  is 
the  fanatic,  not  the  hypocrite,  who  must 
be  taken  into  account.  Sincerity  is  a  ter 
rible  weapon  in  the  hands  of  the  ill-ad 
vised.  There  can  be  no  contagion  of  folly, 
unless  that  folly  be  sincere.  And  what 
gives  the  uncompromising,  because  un 
comprehending,  pacifist  his  dangerous 
force  is  the  fact  that  he  is  psychologically 
as  inevitable  as  were  the  Iconoclasts,  or 
the  Thebaid  anchorites,  or  any  other  his 
toric  instance  of  recoil.  He  is  the  abnor 
mal  product  of  abnormal  conditions.  The 
fury  of  war  has  bred  this  child  of  peace. 
The  fumes  of  battle  have  stupefied  him. 
Aggression  and  defence,  brutality  and 
heroism,  the  might  of  conquest  and  the 
right  of  resistance,  have  for  him  no  sep 
arate  significance.  He  is  one  who  can 
not  master  —  as  every  sane  man  must 
246 


Waiting 

learn  to  master  —  the  deadly  sickness  of 
his  soul. 

To  call  the  pacifist  a  coward  is  simple, 
but  not  enlightening.  Cowardice  is  a 
natural  and  pervasive  attribute  of  hu 
manity.  Few  of  us  can  flatly  disavow  it. 
There  are  women  opposed  to  all  war  be 
cause  their  sons  might  be  shot.  A  pop 
ular  song  —  now  employed  to  raise  the 
spirits  of  school-children  —  expresses  this 
sentiment.  There  are  men  opposed  to 
all  war  because  they  might  themselves 
be  shot.  So  far,  no  music-hall  ditty  has 
exalted  them.  But  this  normal  human 
cowardice  is  not  infectious,  save  in  the 
heat  of  battle,  where,  happily,  it  is  sel 
dom  displayed.  Infectious  pacificism  is 
a  revolt  from  war,  irrespective  of  abstract 
considerations  like  justice  or  injustice, 
and  of  personal  considerations  like  loss 
or  gain. 

History  is  full  of  similar  revolts,  and 
they  have  always  overstepped  the  limits 
of  sanity.  Because  the  pagan  sensualist 
247 


Counter-Currents 

tended  his  body  with  loathsome  solic 
itude,  the  Christian  ascetic  subjected 
his  to  loathsome  indignities.  The  ex 
cesses  of  the  Roman  baths  sanctified  the 
uncleanliness  of  the  early  monasteries. 
Just  as  inevitable  is  the  reaction  from 
a  ravenous  war  to  non-resistance.  Be 
cause  Germany's  armaments  are  power 
ful  enough  to  terrorize  Europe,  we  are 
bidden  to  weaken  our  defences.  Because 
France  and  Belgium  have  been  attacked 
and  devastated,  we  are  implored  to  take 
no  steps  for  self-protection.  The  ap 
peal  sent  out  by  Quaker  citizens  of  Phil 
adelphia —  good  men,  ready,  no  doubt, 
to  die  as  honourably  as  they  have  lived 
—  was  at  once  a  confession  of  faith  and 
a  denial  of  duty.  They  asked  that  the 
money  of  the  taxpayer  should  be  spent 
in  making  "more  homes  happy,"  and 
they  were  content  to  leave  the  security 
of  these  happy  homes  to  the  unassisted 
care  of  Providence.  To  keep  our  powder 
dry  implied  mistrust  of  God. 
248 


Waiting 


That  the  authorities  of  Iowa  should 
strip  the  American  flag  of  a  white  bor 
der,  neatly  stitched  around  it  by  the  pac 
ifists  of  Fort  Dodge,  was  perhaps  to  be 
expected.  The  action  seems  peremptory ; 
but  if  every  society  were  permitted  to 
trim  and  patch  our  national  emblem,  we 
should  soon  have  as  many  flags  as  we 
have  disputants  in  the  field.  For  months 
the  patient  post-office  officials  passed  on 
without  a  murmur  envelopes  ornamented 
with  huge  stamps,  bearing  pictures  of  a 
cannon  partly  metamorphosed  into  a 
ploughshare,  a  bloated  child,  and  a  pounc 
ing  dove ;  and  inscribed  with  these  soul- 
subduing  lines:  — 

"  I  am  in  favour  of  world-wide  peace, 
Spread  this  idea,  and  war  will  cease." 

The  decoration  of  envelopes  with  strange 
devices  has  long  afforded  a  vent  for 
pent-up  feelings.  The  peace-stamp  was 
nobly  seconded  by  the  "  peace-pin,"  a 
white  enamelled  dove,  carrying  the 
249 


Counter-Currents 

motto,  "  World-Peace,"  and  destined  — 
so  its  wearers  assured  us  —  to  prove 
itself  "one  of  the  greatest  factors  in 
eliminating  prejudices  and  division 
lines." 

Are  these  puerilities  unworthy  of  con 
sideration  and  comment?  They  are  not 
so  preposterous  as  was  Mr.  Wanamaker's 
suggestion  that  we  should  recompense 
Germany  for  the  trouble  and  expense  she 
had  incurred  in  seizing  Belgium  by  pay 
ing  her  $100,000,000,000  for  her  spoils. 
They  are  not  so  demoralizing  as  the 
teaching  of  American  school-children  to 
calculate  how  many  bicycles  they  could 
buy  for  the  money  spent  on  the  battle 
ship  Oregon,  or  how  many  tickets  for  a 
ball-game  could  be  provided  at  the  price 
of  the  American  navy.  The  Carnegie 
Endowment  for  International  Peace  is  to 
be  congratulated  on  having  devised  a 
scheme  by  which  boys  and  girls  can  be 
taught  arithmetically  to  place  pleasure 
above  patriotism.  If  Germans  teach  their 
250 


Waiting 

children  to  deny  themselves  some  portion 
of  their  mid-day  meal  for  the  needs  of 
Germany,  and  Americans  teach  their 
children  to  hold  ball-games  and  bicycles 
more  sacred  than  the  needs  of  America, 
what  chance  have  the  men  we  rear 
against  men  reared  to  discipline  and 
self-sacrifice ! 

When  an  anti-enlistment  league  can 
be  formed  in  a  country  which  may  pos 
sibly  be  called  to  war,  and  anti-enlist 
ment  pledges  can  be  signed  by  young 
men  who  promise  never  to  enroll  them 
selves  for  their  nation's  defence,  we  have 
cause  for  apprehension.  When  college 
students  can  be  found  petitioning  for 
peace  at  any  price,  we  have  cause  for 
wonder.  When  women  who  have  suf 
fered  nothing  fling  scorn  at  men  who 
have  suffered  all  things,  we  have  cause 
in  plenty  for  resentment. 

Cause,  too,  for  sorrow  that  such  evil 
words  should  be  so  lightly  spoken.  It 
was  but  a  dreary  laugh  that  was  provoked 
251 


Counter-Currents 

by  Miss  Addams's  picture  of  intoxicated 
regiments  bayoneting  one  another  un 
der  the  stimulating  influence  of  drink. 
Laughter  is  hard  to  come  by  in  these 
dark  days  ;  but  Heaven  knows  we  should 
gladly  have  foregone  the  mirth  to  have 
been  spared  a  slander  so  unworthy.  The 
snatching  of  honour  from  the  soldier  in 
the  hour  of  his  utmost  trial  is  possible 
only  to  the  pacifist,  who,  sick  with  pity 
for  pain,  has  lost  all  understanding  of 
the  things  which  ennoble  pain :  of  fidel 
ity,  and  courage,  and  the  love  of  one's 
country,  which,  next  to  the  love  of  God, 
is  the  purest  of  all  emotions  which  win 
now  the  souls  of  men. 

The  mad  turmoil  of  folly  and  disaffec 
tion  was  kept  at  high  pressure  by  the 
adroitness  of  the  Imperial  Government 
in  juggling  with  technicalities.  While 
we  fed,  like  Hamlet,  on  the  chameleon's 
dish,  and,  "  promise-crammed,"  debated 
windily  over  words,  ship  after  ship  was 
sunk,  and  fresh  exonerations  and  pledges 
252 


Waiting 

were  served  up  for  our  entertainment. 
It  became  difficult  even  for  German- 
Americans  to  know  just  where  they 
stood,  and  how  far  they  might  fittingly 
express  their  contempt  for  the  United 
States,  without  out-distancing  the  Fa 
therland.  When  the  "  Friends  of  Peace" 
in  Chicago  cheered  the  sinking  of  the 
Hesperian,  —  an  exploit  naturally  grati 
fying  to  peaceful  souls,  —  they  were  si 
lenced  by  more  prudent  members  of  the 
convention,  who  bethought  themselves 
that  this  illustration  of  good  faith  might 
in  turn  be  politely  regretted.  All  that 
was  left  for  these  enthusiasts  was  to 
praise  Germany's  "  magnanimity,"  to 
brag  of  her  "historic  friendship"  for 
America  (apparently  under  the  impres 
sion  that  Lafayette  was  a  Prussian  offi 
cer),  to  regret  the  "hysteria"  of  Amer 
icans  over  the  drowning  of  their 
countrymen,  and  to  ascribe  the  whole 
war  to  the  machinations  of  "  Grey  and 
Asquith,  and  Delcasse,  and  Poincare," 

253 


Counter-Currents 

—  "demons  whom  we  should  hiss  and 
howl  into  the  abyss  of  Hell." 

There  was  plenty  of  disaffection  in 
1776,  plenty  in  1861  ;  but  we  fought  our 
two  great  wars  without  dishonour.  If 
the  Germans,  well  aware  of  our  unpre- 
paredness  and  of  our  internal  dissen 
sions,  have  flouted  us  unsparingly,  it  is 
because  they  are,  as  they  have  always 
been,  densely  incapable  of  reading  the 
souls  of  men.  Let  us  not  add  to  our  own 
peril  by  misreading  the  soul  of  Germany. 
We  lack  her  discipline,  we  lack  her 
unity,  we  lack  her  efficiency,  the  splen 
did  result  of  thirty  years'  devotion  to  a 
single  purpose.  It  avails  us  very  little 
to  analyze  the  "falling  sickness"  which 
has  made  her  so  mighty.  Dr.  Lightner 
Witmer,  in  a  profoundly  thoughtful  and 
dispassionate  paper  on  "The  Relation 
of  Intelligence  to  Efficiency,"  diagnoses 
her  disease  as  "  primitivism,"  —  "  mean 
ing  thereby  a  reversion  in  manners,  cus 
toms,  and  principles  to  what  is  charac- 
254 


Waiting 


teristic  of  a  lower  level  of  civilization." 
Mr.  Owen  Wister,  who  is  as  poignantly 
eloquent  as  Dr.  Witmer  is  logical  and 
chill,  reaches  in  "  The  Pentecost  of  Ca 
lamity  "  a  somewhat  similar  conclusion. 
"The  case  of  Germany  is  a  hospital 
case,  a  case  for  the  alienist  ;  the  mania 
of  grandeur  complemented  by  the  mania 
of  persecution.  "  Even  Mr.  Bryan  (always 
a  past-master  of  infelicitous  argument) 
tells  us  that  a  war  with  Germany  is  im 
possible,  because  it  would  be  like  "  chal 
lenging  an  insane  asylum  ;  "  —  as  if  an 
insane  asylum  which  failed  to  restrain 
its  inmates  could  be  left  unchallenged 

by  the  world. 

~1 
It  is  unwise  to  minimize  our  danger 

on  the  score  of  our  saner  judgment  or 
higher  morality.  These  qualities  may 
win  out  in  the  future,  but  we  are  living 
now.  Germany  is  none  the  less  terrible 
because  she  is  obsessed,  and  we  are  not 
a  whit  safer  because  we  recognize  her  ob 
session.  The  German  war-maps  of  Paris, 
255 


Counter-Currents 

cut  into  sections  and  directing  which 
sections  were  to  be  burned,  are  grim 
warnings  to  the  world.  It  is  disturbing 
to  think  how  insensitive  Paris  was  to 
her  peril  when  those  maps  were  pre 
pared.  It  is  disturbing  to  think  that  a 
fool's  paradise  is  always  the  most  popu 
lar  playground  of  humanity.  In  the 
"  Atlantic  Monthly  "  for  August,  1915,  an 
Englishman  explained  lucidly  to  Amer 
ican  readers  (the  only  audience  patient 
enough  to  hear  him)  that  non-resistance 
is  the  road  to  security.  Mr.  Russell,  "  a 
mathematician  and  a  philosopher,"  is 
confident  that  if  England  would  submit 
passively  to  invasion,  and  refuse  pas 
sively  to  obey  the  invader,  she  would 
suffer  no  great  wrong.  Had  he  read 
"  Sandford  and  Merton  "  when  he  was  a 
little  boy,  it  might  possibly  occur  to  him 
that  Germany  would  treat  the  non-re 
sisting  strikers  as  Mr.  Barlow  treated 
Tommy,  when  that  misguided  child  re 
fused  to  dig  and  hoe.  Had  he  read  the 
256 


Waiting 

"  Bryce  report,"  —  which  is  not  pleasant 
reading,  —  he  might  feel  less  sure  that 
English  homes  and  English  women  would 
be  safe  from  assault  because  they  lacked 
protectors. 

The  same  happy  confidence  in  our 
receptivity  and  in  our  limitless  good  na 
ture  was  shown  by  Professor  Kraus, 
who,  in  the  "  Atlantic  Monthly  "  for  Sep 
tember,  1915,  conveyed  to  us  in  the 
plainest  possible  language  his  unfavour 
able  opinion  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and 
of  its  supporters.  No  German  could  be 
less  "  nice  "  in  concealing  his  contempt 
than  was  this  ingenuous  contributor ; 
and  nothing  could  be  better  for  us  than 
to  hear  such  words  spoken  at  such  a 
time.  The  threat  of  a  "  general  account 
ing"  was  not  even  presented  suavely  to 
our  ears,  but  it  left  us  no  room  for 
doubt. 

That  two  such  arguments  from  two 
such  sources  should  have  enlivened  our 
term  of  waiting  is  worthy  of  note.  The 
257 


Counter-Currents 

Englishman,  seeing  us  beset  by  irration 
alities,  added  one  more  phantasy  to  our 
load.  The  German,  seeing  us  beset  by 
alarms,  added  one  more  menace  to  af 
fright  us.  Our  patience  is  impervious  to 
folly  and  to  intimidation.  We  have  plenty 
of  both  at  home.  Only  an  American  can 
understand  the  cumulative  anger  in  his 
countryman's  heart  as  affront  is  added 
to  affront,  and  the  slow  lapse  of  time 
brings  us  neither  redress  nor  redemp 
tion.  However  sanguine  and  however 
peace-loving  we  may  be,  we  cannot  well 
base  our  hopes  of  future  security  on  the 
tenderness  shown  us  in  the  past.  If  long 
months  of  painful  suspense,  of  hope  al 
ternating  with  despondency,  and  pride 
with  shame,  have  wrought  no  other 
good,  they  have  at  least  revealed  to  us 
where  our  danger  lies.  They  have  bared 
disloyalty,  and  have  put  good  citizens 
on  their  guard. 

Somewhere  in  the  mind  ,of  the  nation 
is  a  saving  sanity.  Somewhere  in  the 
258 


Waiting 

heart  of  the  nation  is  a  saving  grace.  A 
day  may  come  when  these  two  harmoni 
ous  qualities  will  find  expression  in  the 
simple  words  of  Cardinal  Newman : 
"  The  best  prudence  is  to  have  no  fear." 


Americanism 

WHENEVER  we  stand  in  need  of 
intricate  knowledge,  balanced 
judgment,  or  delicate  analysis, 
it  is  our  comfortable  habit  to  question  our 
neighbours.  They  may  be  no  wiser  and 
no  better  informed  than  we  are ;  but  a  col 
lective  opinion  has  its  value,  or  at  least 
its  satisfying  qualities.  For  one  thing, 
there  is  so  much  of  it.  For  another,  it  sel 
dom  lacks  variety.  Two  years  ago  the 
"American  Journal  of  Sociology"  asked 
two  hundred  and  fifty  "representative" 
men  and  women  "  upon  what  ideals,  poli 
cies,  programmes,  or  specific  purposes 
should  Americans  place  most  stress  in  the 
immediate  future,"  and  published  the  an 
swers  that  were  returned  in  a  Sympo 
sium  entitled,  "What  is  Americanism?" 
The  candid  reader,  following  this  sym 
posium,  received  much  counsel,  but  little 
260 


Americanism 

enlightenment.  There  were  some  good 
practical  suggestions ;  but  nowhere  any 
cohesion,  nowhere  any  sense  of  solidar 
ity,  nowhere  any  concern  for  national 
honour  or  authority. 

It  was  perhaps  to  be  expected  that 
Mr.  Burghardt  Du  Bois's  conception  of 
true  Americanism  would  be  the  abolish 
ment  of  the  colour  line,  and  that  Mr. 
Eugene  Debs  would  see  salvation  in  the 
sweeping  away  of  "  privately  owned  in 
dustries,  and  production  for  individual 
profit."  These  answers  might  have  been 
foreseen  when  the  questions  were  asked. 
But  it  was  disconcerting  to  find  that  all, 
or  almost  all,  of  the  "representative" 
citizens  represented  one  line  of  civic  pol 
icy,  or  civic  reform,  and  refused  to  look 
beyond  it.  The  prohibitionist  discerned 
Americanism  in  prohibition,  the  equal 
suffragist  in  votes  for  women,  the  biolo 
gist  in  applied  science,  the  physician  in 
the  extirpation  of  microbes,  the  philan 
thropist  in  playgrounds,  the  sociologist 
261 


Counter-Currents 

in  eugenism  and  old-age  pensions,  and 
the  manufacturer  in  the  revision  of  taxes. 
It  was  refreshing  when  an  author  unex 
pectedly  demanded  the  extinction  of  in 
herited  capital.  Authorship  seldom  con 
cerns  itself  with  anything  so  inconceiv 
ably  remote. 

The  quality  of  miscellaneousness  is 
least  serviceable  when  we  leave  the  world 
of  affairs,  and  seek  admission  into  the 
world  of  ideals.  There  must  be  an  inter 
pretation  of  Americanism  which  will  ex 
press  for  all  of  us  a  patriotism  at  once 
practical  and  emotional,  an  understand 
ing  of  our  place  in  the  world,  and  of  the 
work  we  are  best  fitted  to  do  in  it,  a  senti 
ment  which  we  can  hold  —  as  we  hold 
nothing  else  —  in  common,  and  which 
will  be  forever  remote  from  personal  solici 
tude  and  resentment.  Those  of  us  whose 
memories  stretch  back  over  half  a  cen 
tury  recall  too  plainly  a  certain  uneasi 
ness  which  for  years  pervaded  American 
politics  and  American  letters,  which  made 
262 


Americanism 

us  unduly  apprehensive,  and,  as  a  conse 
quence,  unduly  sensitive  and  arrogant. 
It  found  expression  in  Mr.  William  Cul- 
len  Bryant's  well-known  poem,  "  Amer 
ica,"  made  familiar  to  my  generation  by 
school  readers  and  manuals  of  elocution, 
and  impressed  by  frequent  recitations 
upon  our  memories. 

"  O  mother  of  a  mighty  race, 
Yet  lovely  in  thy  youthful  grace! 
The  elder  dames,  thy  haughty  peers, 
Admire  and  hate  thy  blooming  years; 

With  words  of  shame 
And  taunts  of  scorn  they  join  thy  name." 

There  are  eight  verses,  and  four  of 
them  repeat  Mr.  Bryant's  conviction  that 
the  nations  of  Europe  united  in  envying 
and  insulting  us.  To  be  hated  because  we 
were  young,  and  strong,  and  good,  and 
beautiful,  seemed,  to  my  childish  heart, 
a  noble  fate  ;  and  when  a  closer  acquaint 
ance  with  history  dispelled  this  pleasant 
illusion,  I  parted  from  it  with  regret. 
France  was  our  ally  in  the  Revolution- 
263 


Counter-Currents 

ary  War.  Russia'was  friendly  in  the  Civil 
War.  England  was  friendly  in  the  Span 
ish  War.  If  the  repudiation  of  state  debts 
left  a  bad  taste  in  the  mouths  of  for 
eign  investors,  they  might  be  pardoned 
for  making  a  wry  face.  Most  of  them 
were  subsequently  paid  ;  but  the  phrase 
"  American  revoke  "  dates  from  the  period 
of  suspense.  By  the  time  we  celebrated 
our  hundredth  birthday  with  a  world's 
fair,  we  were  on  very  easy  terms  with 
our  neighbours.  Far  from  taunting  us 
with  shameful  words,  our  "haughty 
peers  "  showed  on  this  memorable  occa 
sion  unanimous  good  temper  and  good 
will ;  and  "  Punch's  "  congratulatory 
verses  were  among  the  most  pleasant 
birthday  letters  we  received. 

The  expansion  of  national  life,  fed  by     /  / 
the  great  emotions  of  the  Civil  War,  and    K 
revealed  to  the  world  by  the  Centennial 
Exhibition,  found  expression  in  educa 
tion,  art,  and  letters.   Then -it  was  that 
Americanism  took  a  new  and  disconcert- 
264 


Americanism 

ing  turn.  Pleased  with  our  progress, 
stunned  by  finding  that  we  had  poets, 
and  painters,  and  novelists,  and  maga 
zines,  and  a  history,  all  of  our  own,  we 
began  to  say,  and  say  very  loudly,  that 
we  had  no  need  of  the  poets,  and  painters, 
and  novelists,  and  magazines,  and  his 
tories  of  other  lands.  Our  attitude  was 
not  unlike  that  of  George  Borrow,  who, 
annoyed  by  the  potency  of  Italian  art, 
adjured  Englishmen  to  stay  at  home  and 
contemplate  the  greatness  of  England. 
England,  he  said,  had  pictures  of  her  own. 
She  had  her  own  "  minstrel  strain."  She 
had  all  her  sons  could  ask  for.  "  England 
against  the  world." 

In  the  same  exclusive  spirit,  American 
school  boards  proposed  that  American 
school-children  should  begin  the  study 
of  history  with  the  colonization  of  Amer 
ica,  ignoring  the  trivial  episodes  which 
preceded  this  great  event.  Patriotic  pro 
tectionists  heaped  duties  on  foreign  art, 
and  bade  us  buy  American  pictures.  En- 

265 


Counter-C  urrents 

thusiastic  editors  confided  to  us  that "  the 
world  has  never  known  such  storehouses 
of  well-selected  mental  food  as  are  fur 
nished  by  our  American  magazines." 
Complacent  critics  rejoiced  that  Ameri 
can  poets  did  not  sing  like  Tennyson, 
"  nor  like  Keats,  nor  Shelley,  nor  Words 
worth  "  ;  but  that,  as  became  a  new  race 
of  men,  they  "  reverberated  a  synthesis  of 
all  the  poetic  minds  of  the  century."  Fi 
nally,  American  novelists  assured  us  that 
in  their  hands  the  art  of  fiction  had 
grown  so  fine  and  rare  that  we  could  no 
longer  stand  the  "  mannerisms  "  of  Dick 
ens,  or  the  "  confidential  attitude "  of 
Thackeray.  We  had  scaled  the  empy 
rean  heights. 

There  is  a  brief  paragraph  in  Mr. 
Thayer's  "  Life  and  Letters  of  John  Hay," 
which  vividly  recalls  this  peculiar  phase 
of  Americanism.  Mr.  Hay  writes  to  Mr. 
Howells  in  1882 :  "  The  worst  thing  in  our 
time  about  American  taste  is  the  way  it 
treats  James.  I  believe  he  would  not  be 
266 


Americanism 

read  in  America  at  all  if  it  were  not  for  hip 
European  vogue.  If  he  lived  in  Cam 
bridge,  he  could  write  what  he  likes ;  but 
because  he  finds  London  more  agreeable, 
he  is  the  prey  of  all  the  patriotisms.  Of 
all  vices,  I  hold  patriotism  the  worst, 
when  it  meddles  with  matters  of  taste." 
So  far  had  American  patriotism  en 
croached  upon  matters  of  taste,  that  by 
1892  there  was  a  critical  embargo  placed 
upon  foreign  literature.  "  Every  nation," 
we  were  told,  "ought  to  supply  its 
own  second-rate  books,"  —  like  domestic 
sheeting  and  ginghams.  An  acquaint 
ance  with  English  authors  was  held  to 
be  a  misdemeanour.  Why  quote  Mr. 
Matthew  Arnold,  when  you  might  quote 
Mr.  Lowell?  Why  write  about  Becky 
Sharp,  when  you  might  write  about 
Hester  Prynne  ?  Why  laugh  over  Dick 
ens,  when  you  might  laugh  over  Mark 
Twain  ?  Why  eat  artichokes,  when  you 
might  eat  corn  ?  American  school-boys, 
we  were  told,  must  be  guarded  from  the 

267 


Counter-Currents 

feudalism  of  Scott.  American  speech 
must  be  guarded  from  the  "  insularities  " 
of  England's  English.  "  That  failure  in 
good  sense  which  comes  from  too  warm 
a  self-satisfaction"  (Mr.  Arnold  does 
sometimes  say  a  thing  very  well)  robbed 
us  for  years  of  mental  poise,  of  adjusted 
standards,  of  an  unencumbered  outlook 
upon  life. 

It  is  strange  to  glance  back  upon  a 
day  when  we  had  so  little  to  trouble  us 
that  we  could  vex  our  souls  over  feudal 
ism  and  fiction  ;  when  —  in  the  absence 
of  serious  problems  —  we  could  raise 
pronunciation  or  spelling  into  a  national 
issue.  Americanism  has  done  with  triv 
ialities,  patriotism  with  matters  of  taste. 
Love  for  one's  country  is  not  a  shallow 
sentiment,  based  upon  self-esteem.  It  is 
a  profound  and  primitive  passion.  It  may 
lie  dormant  in  our  souls  when  all  goes 
well.  It  may  be  thwarted  and  frustrated 
by  the  exigencies  of  party  government. 
It  may  be  dissevered  from  pride  or  pleas- 
268 


Americanism 

ure.  But  it  is  part  of  ourselves,  wholly 
beyond  analysis,  fed  upon  hope  and  fear, 
joy  and  sorrow,  glory  and  shame.  If, 
after  the  fashion  of  the  world, we  drowsed 
in  our  day  of  security,  we  have  been 
rudely  and  permanently  awakened.  The 
shadow  of  mighty  events  has  fallen  across 
our  path.  We  have  witnessed  a  great 
national  crime.  We  have  beheld  the  ut 
most  heights  of  heroism.  And  when  we 
asked  of  what  concern  to  us  were  this 
crime  and  this  heroism,  the  answer  came 
unexpectedly,  and  with  blinding  force. 
The  sea  was  strewn  with  our  dead,  our 
honour  was  undermined  by  conspiracies, 
our  factories  were  fired,  our  cargoes 
dynamited.  We  were  a  neutral  nation 
at  peace  with  the  world.  The  attack 
made  upon  our  industries  and  upon  our 
good  name  was  secret,  malignant,  and 
pitiless.  It  was  organized  warfare,  with 
out  the  courage  and  candour  of  war. 

The  unavowed  enemy  who  strikes  in 
the  dark  is  hard  to  reach,  but  he  is  out- 
269 


Counter-Currents 

side  the  pale  of  charity.  There  was  some 
thing  in  the  cold  fury  of  Mr.  Wilson's 
words,  when,  in  his  message  to  Congress, 
he  denounced  the  traitors  "  who  have 
poured  the  poison  of  disloyalty  into  the 
very  arteries  of  our  national  life,"  which 
turned  that  unexpansive  state-paper  into 
a  human  document,  and  drove  it  straight 
to  the  human  hearts  of  an  injured  and 
insulted  people.  Under  the  menace  of 
disloyalty,  Americanism  has  taken  new 
form  and  substance;  and  our  just  re 
sentment,  like  the  potter's  wheel,  has 
moulded  this  force  into  lines  of  strength 
and  resistance.  We  have  seen  all  we 
want  to  see  of  "  frightfulness "  in  Eu 
rope,  all  we  want  to  see  of  injustice,  sup 
ported  by  violence.  We  are  not  prepared 
to  welcome  any  scheme  of  terrorization 
in  the  interests  of  a  foreign  power,  or 
any  interference  of  a  foreign  power  with 
our  legitimate  fields  of  industry.  Such 
schemes  and  such  interference  constitute 
an  inconceivable  affront  to  the  nation. 
270 


Americanism 

Their  stern  and  open  disavowal  is  the 
shibboleth  by  which  our  elections  may 
be  purged  of  treachery,  and  our  well- 
being  confided  to  good  citizenship. 

Of  all  the  countries  in  the  world,  we 
and  we  only  have  any  need  to  create 
artificially  the  patriotism  which  is  the 
birthright  of  other  nations.  Into  the 
hearts  of  six  millions  of  foreign-born 
men  —  less  than  half  of  them  natural 
ized —  we  must  infuse  that  quality  of 
devotion  which  will  make  them  place 
the  good  of  the  state  above  their  per 
sonal  good,  and  the  safety  of  the  state 
above  their  personal  safety.  It  is  like 
pumping  oxygen  into  six  million  pairs 
of  lungs  for  which  the  common  air  is 
not  sufficiently  stimulating.  We  must 
also  keep  a  watchful  eye  upon  these 
men's  wives,  —  when  they  are  so  blessed, 
—  and  concentrate  our  supreme  energy 
on  uncounted  milions  of  children,  whose 
first  step  toward  patriotism  is  the  ac 
quirement  of  a  common  tongue. 
271 


Counter-Currents 

We  are  trying  fitfully,  but  in  good 
faith,  to  work  this  civic  miracle.  Ameri 
canization  Day  is  but  one  expression 
of  the  nation-wide  endeavour.  When 
Cleveland  invited  all  her  citizens  who 
had  been  naturalized  within  a  twelve 
month  to  assemble  and  receive  a  public 
welcome,  to  sit  on  a  platform  and  be 
made  much  of,  to  listen  to  national 
songs  and  patriotic  speeches,  and  to 
take  home,  every  man,  a  flag  and  a  seal 
of  the  city,  she  set  a  good  example 
which  will  be  widely  followed.  The  cele 
brations  at  Riverside,  California,  and 
New  York  City's  Pageant  of  the  Na 
tions  had  in  view  the  same  admirable 
end.  Sentiment  is  not  a  substitute  for 
duty  and  discipline ;  but  it  has  its  uses 
and  its  field  of  efficacy.  Such  ceremonies 
perseveringly  repeated  for  twenty  years 
might  work  a  change  in  the  immigrant 
population  of  to-day,  were  we  secure 
from  the  fresh  millions  which  threaten 
us  to-morrow.  That  the  Fourth  of  July 
272 


Americanism 

should  be  often  selected  for  these  rites 
is  perhaps  inevitable ;  it  is  a  time  when 
patriotism  assumes  a  vivid  and  popular 
aspect ;  but  Heaven  forbid  that  we  should 
rechristen  Independence  Day,  Ameri 
canization  Day !  However  ready  we  may 
be  to  welcome  our  new  citizens,  how 
ever  confident  we  may  be  of  their  value 
to  the  Republic,  we  are  not  yet  prepared 
to  give  them  the  place  of  honour  hith 
erto  held  by  the  signers  of  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence.  The  name  which 
perpetuates  the  memory  of  that  deed 
is  a  sacred  name,  and  should  be  pre 
served  no  less  sacredly  than  the  na 
tional  life  which  was  then  committed  to 
our  keeping. 

It  is  no  insult  to  the  immigrant  to  say 
that  he  constitutes  one  of  the  perils  of 
Americanism.  How  can  it  be  otherwise? 
Assume  that  he  is  a  law-abiding  citizen, 
that  he  knows  nothing  of  the  conspira 
cies  which  have  imperilled  our  safety, 
that  he  does  not  propose  to  use  his  vote 
273 


Counter-Currents 

in  the  interests  of  a  foreign  power,  and 
that  the  field  of  hyphenated  politics 
has  no  existence  for  him.  For  all  these 
boons  we  are  sufficiently  grateful.  But 
how  far  does  he  understand  the  respon 
sibilities  he  assumes  with  the  franchise, 
how  far  does  he  realize  that  he  has 
become  part  of  the  machinery  of  the 
state,  and  how  far  can  we  depend  upon 
him  in  our  hour  of  need  ?  He  knows,  or 
at  least  he  has  been  told,  that  he  may 
not  return  home  to  fight  for  his  own 
country,  if  he  seeks  American  citizen 
ship.  He  must  resist  a  natural  and  a  no 
ble  impulse  as  the  price  of  his  coveted 
"  papers."  But  will  there  spring  in  his 
heart  a  noble,  though  not  very  natural, 
impulse  to  fight  for  us  if  we  call  our  sons 
to  arms?  Can  we  hope  that  his  native 
intelligence,  unshackled  by  any  working 
knowledge  of  our  language,  will  grasp 
our  national  policy  and  our  national  obli 
gations  ;  and  that  —  free  f rorn  conscrip 
tion  —  he  will  voluntarily  risk  his  life  in 
274 


Am'ericanism 

behalf  of  a  government  for  which  he  has 
no  inheritance  of  fidelity? 

We  have  opened  our  doors  to  unre 
stricted  immigration,  partly  because  cap 
italists  want  plenty  of  cheap  labour, 
which  is  not  a  good  reason ;  and  partly 
because  the  immigrants  want  to  come, 
which  is  not  a~sufficient  reason.  They 
also  —  despite  the  heart-rending  condi 
tions  depicted  by  Miss  Frances  Kellor  — 
want  to  stay.  Those  who  return  to  the 
higher  standards  of  Europe  do  not  mate 
rially  affect  the  situation.  They  stay,  and 
either  surmount  their  difficulties,  or,  suc 
cumbing  to  them,  fill  our  asylums,  hos 
pitals,  and  almshouses.  For  many  years, 
foreign  economists  must  have  looked 
with  relief  at  the  countless  thousands  of 
derelicts  who  were  supported  by  the 
United  States  instead  of  by  their  own 
governments.  But  even  the  satisfaction 
we  have  thus  afforded  does  not  wholly 
justify  our  course.  Is  it  worth  our  while 
to  fill  the  air  with  clamour  over  eugenics 
275 


Counter-Currents 

and  birth-control,  to  build  barriers  around 
a  marriage  license,  and  to  dramatize  im 
passioned  pleas  for  sterility,  when  the 
birthrate  of  the  Republic  is  nobody's 
concern?  If  the  survival  of  the  fittest 
means  as  much  to  the  commonwealth  as 
to  the  family,  why  should  we  fiddle  over 
pathology  while  the  nation  burns? 

Miss  Kellor  is  not  the  only  kind- 
hearted  American  who  holds  her  coun 
trymen  to  blame  for  the  deficiencies  of 
the  immigrant.  Her  point  of  view  is  a 
common  one,  and  has  some  foundation 
in  fact.  She  censures  us  even  for  his  dirt, 
though  if  she  had  ever  listened  to  the 
vitriolic  comments  of  the  police,  she 
might  revise  her  judgment  on  that  score. 
"  Can't  you  do  anything  ?  "  I  once  asked 
a  disconsolate  guardian  of  the  peace,  who 
stood  on  a  fine  hot  day  contemplating 
the  forth-flung  garbage  of  the  Israelite. 
To  which  he  made  answer :  "  Did  ye  iver 
thry  to  clane  out  a  sthable  wid  a  tooth 
pick  ?  "  And  as  this  had  not  been  one  of 
276 


Americanism 

my  life's  endeavours,  I  offered  no  further 
comment.  But  Miss  Kellor  touches  a  vital 
truth  when  she  says  that  Americans  will 
never  weld  a  mass  of  heterogeneous  hu 
manity  into  a  nation,  until  they  are  able 
to  say  what  they  want  that  nation  to  be, 
and  until  they  are  prepared  to  follow  a 
policy  intelligently  outlined.  In  other 
words,  Americanism  is  not  a  medley  of 
individual  theories,  partial  philanthro 
pies,  and  fluid  sentiment.  A  consistent 
nationalism  is  essential  to  civic  life,  and 
we  are  not  dispensed  from  achieving 
consistent  nationalism  by  the  difficulties 
in  our  way.  No  multiplication  of  difficul 
ties  makes  an  impossibility.  Upon  what 
props  did  the  Venetians  build  the  fairest 
city  of  the  world  ? 

We  cannot  in  this  country  hope  for 
the  compelling  devotion  which  has  ani 
mated  Germany ;  still  less  for  the  su 
preme  moral  and  intellectual  force  which 
is  the  staying  power  of  France.  Mrs. 
Wharton  has  best  described  the  intelli- 
277 


Counter-Currents 

gence  with  which  Frenchmen  translate 
their  ideals  into  doctrine.  They  know  for 
what  they  stand  in  the  civilized  world, 
and  the  first  "  white  heat  of  dedication  " 
has  hardened  into  steel-like  endurance. 
To  the  simple  emotions  of  men  who  are 
defending  their  homes  from  assault  have 
been  added  the  emotions  of  men  who 
are  defending  the  world's  noblest  inherit 
ance  from  degradation.  "  It  is  the  rea 
soned  recognition  of  this  peril  which  is 
making  the  most  intelligent  people  in 
the  world  the  most  sublime." 

The  problems  of  England  are  so  closely 
akin  to  our  own  problems,  and  her  per 
plexities  are  so  closely  akin  to  our  own 
perplexities,  that  we  should  regard  them 
with  insight  and  with  sympathy.  We  too 
must  pause  in  every  keen  emergency  to 
cajole,  to  persuade,  to  placate,  to  recon 
cile  conflicting  interests,  to  humour  con 
flicting  opinions,  —  termed  by  those  who 
hold  them,  "  principles."  We  too  must 
forever  bear  in  mind  the  political  party 
278 


Americanism 

which  is  in  power,  and  the  political  party 
which  waits  to  get  into  power;  and  we 
must  pick  our  way  as  best  we  can  by  the 
cross-lights  of  their  abiding  hostility.  We 
too  must  face  and  overcome  the  dough- 
like  resistance  of  apathy. 

I  have  been  told  —  though  I  refuse  to 
believe  it  on  hearsay —  that  British  labour 
ers  have  asked  what  difference  it  would 
make  to  them  whether  they  worked  for 
British  or  for  German  masters.  It  is  quite 
true  that  British  pacifists  and  British  radi 
cals  have  not  only  put  this  question,  but 
have  answered  it,  greatly  to  their  own 
satisfaction,  in  American  periodicals ;  but 
American  periodicals  are  not  mouth 
pieces  of  the  British  workmen.  I  make 
no  doubt  that  if  we  were  fighting  for  our 
lives,  there  would  be  found  American 
pacifists  and  American  radicals  writing 
in  British  periodicals  that  no  great  harm 
would  come  to  America  if  she  submitted 
passively  to  invasion  ;  and  that,  whether 
their  country's  cause  were  right  or  wrong, 
279 


Counter-Currents 

the  slaughter  of  her  sons  was  a  crime, 
and  the  wealth  of  her  capitalists  was  a 
sufficient  reason  for  refusing  to  do  battle 
for  her  liberty.  The  painful  certainty  that 
we  should  never  be  free  from  the  bab 
bling  of  treason,  any  more  than  England 
is  free  from  it  now,  makes  Americanism 
(the  Americanism  which  means  civic  loy 
alty  founded  on  civic  intelligence)  shine 
like  a  far-off  star  on  a  very  dim  horizon. 
At  present,  disloyalty  founded  upon 
ignorance  meets  with  more  attention 
than  it  deserves.  Why,  after  all,  should 
two  thousand  people  assemble  in  New 
York  to  hear  Miss  Helen  Keller  say  that, 
in  the  event  of  invasion,  the  American 
workman  "has  nothing  to  lose  but  his 
chains  "  ?  He  has  his  manhood  to  lose,  and 
it  should  mean  as  much  to  him  as  to  any 
millionaire  in  the  land.  What  new  and 
debilitating  doctrine  is  this  which  holds 
that  personal  honour  is  the  exclusive  at 
tribute  of  wealth,  and  that  a  labourer 
has  no  more  business  with  it  than  has  a 
280 


Americanism 

dog !  The  fact  that  Miss  Keller  has  over 
come  the  heavy  disabilities  which  nature 
placed  in  her  path,  lends  interest  toher  per 
son,  but  no  weight  to  her  opinions,  which 
give  evidence  of  having  been  adopted 
wholesale,  and  of  having  never  filtered 
through  any  reasoning  process  of  her 
own.  It  is  always  agreeable  to  hear  her 
speak  about  good  and  simple  things. 
When  she  said  in  Philadelphia  that  hap 
piness  does  not  lie  in  pleasure,  and  that, 
although  she  did  not  expect  to  be  al 
ways  pleased,  she  did  expect  to  be  always 
happy,  by  doing  what  she  could  to  make 
those  about  her  happy,  we  gave  our 
hearty  concurrence  to  sentiments  so  un 
exceptionable.  It  was  the  way  we  our 
selves  should  have  liked  to  feel,  and  we 
knew  it  was  our  own  fault  that  we  did 
not.  But  when  in  New  York  she  adjured 

workingrnen  never  to  enter  the  United 

-. 

States  Army,  and  informed  us  that  all 

we  needed  for  adequate  defence  were 

shooting-galleries  "within  reach  of  every 

281 


Counter-Currents 

family,"  so  that  we  could  all  learn  —  like 
the  old  ladies  in  "  Punch"  —  to  fire  a 
gun,  there  was  something  profoundly 
sad  in  words  so  ill-judged  and  so  fatuous. 
It  cannot  be  a  matter  of  no  moment  that, 
in  the  hour  of  our  danger  and  indeci 
sion,  thousands  of  people  stand  ready 
to  applaud  the  disloyal  utterances  which 
should  affront  every  honourable  man  or 
woman  who  hears  them, 

\Tfhe  "Yale  Review"  quotes  the  re- 
maflr  of  a  " foreigner"  that  Americans 
are  always  saying,  "  I  don't  careTj  The 
phrase  is  popular,  and  sounds  disheart 
ening  ;  but  if  we  spare  ourselves  concern 
over  trivial  things  (if,  for  example,  we 
were  not  excited  or  inflamed  by  Captain 
von  Papen's  calling  us  "idiotic  Yan 
kees"),  it  does  not  follow  that  big  issues 
leave  us  unmoved.  If  they  did,  if  they 
ever  should,  the  word  Americanism 
might  as  well  be  obliterated  from  the 
language.  The  consistent  nationalism 
for  which  it  stands  admits  of  no  indiffer- 
282 


Americanism 

ence.  It  is  true  that  the  possible  peril  of 
New  York  —  as  defenceless  as  a  soft- 
shell  crab,  and  as  succulent  —  is  not  an 
ever-present  care  to  San  Francisco.  It  is 
true  that  San  Francisco's  deep  anxiety 
over  Japanese  immigration  and  land- 
ownership  was  lightly  treated  by  New 
York.  And  it  is  true  that  Denver,  sitting 
in  the  safety  zone,  looks  down  from  her 
lofty  heights  without  any  pressing  solici 
tude  about  either  of  her  sister  cities.  But 
just  as  the  San  Francisco  earthquake 
wrung  the  heart  of  New  York,  so  the 
first  gun  fired  at  New  York  would  arm 
the  citizens  of  San  Francisco.  Only  it 
might  then  be  too  late. 

The  Christmas  cartoon  of  Uncle  Sam 
holding  a  package  marked  "  Peace  and 
Prosperity,"  and  saying  with  a  broad 
smile,  "  Just  what  I  wanted ! "  was  com 
placent  rather  than  comprehensive.  We 
want  peace  and  we  want  prosperity, 
but  they  are  not  all  we  want ;  partly  be 
cause  their  permanency  depends  upon 

283 ' 


Counter-Currents 

certain  props  which  seem  to  many  of  us 
a  bit  unsteady,  and  partly  because  we  do 
not,  any  more  than  other  men,  live  by 
bread  alone.  The  things  of  the  spirit  are 
for  us,  even  as  for  heroic  and  suffering 
France,  of  vital  worth  and  import.  If  we 
could  say  with  certainty,  "  All  is  gained 
but  honour,"  there  are  still  some  of  us 
who  would  feel  our  blessings  incomplete ; 
but,  as  it  chances,  the  contempt  meted 
out  to  us  has  taken  the  palpable  form  of 
encroachment  upon  our  common  rights. 
Until  we  can  protect  our  industries  from 
assault  and  our  citizens  from  butchery, 
until  we  can  couple  disavowal  of  past 
injuries  with  real  assurance  of  safety  in 
the  future,  peace  limps,  and  prosperity 
is  shadowed.  With  every  fresh  shock 
we  have  received,  with  every  fresh  sor 
row  we  have  endured,  there  has  come  to 
us  more  and  more  clearly  the  vision  of  a 
noble  nationalism,  purged  of  "  comfort- 
mongering,"  and  of  perverted  sentiment. 
Cynical  newspaper  writers  have  be- 
284 


Americanism 

gun  to  say  that  the  best  way  to  make 
Americans  forget  one  injury  is  to  inflict 
on  them  another.  This  is  hardly  a  half- 
truth.  The  sinking  of  the  Ancona  did 
not  obliterate  from  our  minds  the  names 
of  the  Falaba,  the  Gulflight,  the  Frye, 
the  Hesperian,  the  Arabic,  and  the  Lusi- 
tania.  Neither  has  the  sinking  of  the 
Persia  buried  the  Ancona  in  oblivion. 
And  it  is  not  simple  humanity  which  has 
burned  these  names  into  the  tablets  of 
our  memories.  The  loss  of  American 
lives  through  the  savage  torpedoing  of 
liners  and  merchant  ships  might  be  dou 
bled  and  trebled  any  summer  day  by  the 
sinking  of  an  excursion  steamer,  and  we 
should  soon  forget.  A  country  which  re 
ports  eight  thousand  murders  in  a  single 
year  is  not  wont  to  be  deeply  stirred  by 
the  perils  which  beset  our  munition- 
workers.  But  when  Americans  have 
gone  to  their  deaths  through  the  violence 
of  another  government,  or  in  the  inter 
ests  of  another  government,  then  the 

285 


Counter-Currents 

wrong  done  them  is  elevated  to  the  im 
portance  of  a  national  calamity,  and  re 
dress  becomes  a  national  obligation. 
Because  we  do  not  wearily  reiterate  this 
patent  truth  does  not  mean  that  we  have 
forgotten  it.  If  words  could  save,  if  words 
could  heal,  we  should  have  no  fear,  nor 
shame,  nor  sorrow.  Nothing  is  less  worth 
while  than  to  go  on  prattling  about  a 
consistent  foreign  policy.  The  corner 
stone  of  civilization  is  man's  dependence 
for  protection  on  the  state  which  he  has 
reared  for  his  own  safety  and  support. 

The  concern  of  Americans  for  Amer 
ica  (I  use  the  word  to  symbolize  the 
United  States)  must  be  the  deep  and 
loyal  sentiment  which  brooks  no  injustice 
and  no  insult.  We  have  need  of  many 
things,  but  first  and  foremost  of  fidelity. 
It  is  a  matter  of  pride  and  pleasure  that 
some  of  our  foreign-born  citizens  should 
excel  in  art  and  letters ;  that,  under 
our  tutelage,  they  should  learn  to  design 
posters,  model  statuary,  write  poems,  and 
286 


Americanism 

make  speeches.  These  things  have  their 
admitted  place  and  value.  The  encour 
agement  which  is  given  them,  the  op 
portunities  which  are  made  for  them,  the 
praise  which  is  lavished  upon  them,  are 
proofs  of  our  good-will,  and  of  our  genu 
ine  delight  in  fostering  ability.  But  the 
real  significance  of  the  "Americaniza 
tion"  movement,  the  summoning  of  con 
ferences,  the  promoting  of  exhibitions, 
the  bestowing  of  prizes,  is  the  need  we  all 
feel  of  unification,  the  hope  we  all  cherish 
that,  through  the  influence  of  congenial 
work,  immigrants  and  the  children  of 
immigrants  will  become  one  in  spirit  with 
the  native  born.  We  could  make  shift 
to  do  without  the  posters  and  the  sym 
bolic  statuary ;  we  could  read  fewer 
poems  and  listen  to  fewer  speeches  ;  but 
we  cannot  possibly  do  without  the  loy 
alty  which  we  have  a  right  to  demand, 
and  which  is  needful  to  the  safety  of  the 
Republic. 

For   the  main  thing  to  be  borne  in 
287 


Counter-Currents 

mind  is  that  Americanization  does  not 
mean  only  an  increase  of  opportunity 
for  the  alien,  an  effort  toward  his  per 
manent  well-being.  It  means  also  service 
and  sacrifice  on  his  part.  This  is  what 
citizenship  entails,  although  voters  and 
those  who  clamour  for  the  vote  seldom 
take  into  account  such  an  inexorable 
truth.  The  process  of  assimilation  must 
go  deeper  than  the  polling  booth  and  the 
trade  union  can  carry  it  Democracy  for 
ever  teases  us  with  the  contrast  between 
its  ideals  and  its  realities,  between  its 
heroic  possibilities  and  its  sorry  achieve 
ments.  But  it  is  our  appointed  road,  and 
the  stones  over  which  we  perpetually 
stumble  deny  us  the  drowsy  perils  of  con 
tent.  When  we  read  Dr.  Eliot's  noble 
words  in  praise  of  free  government  and 
equal  opportunities,  we  know  that  his 
amazing  buoyancy  does  not  imply  igno 
rance  of  primaries,  of  party  methods,  and 
of  graft.  With  these  things  he  has  been 
familiar  all  his  life  ;  but  the  creaking  ma- 
288 


Americanism 

chinery  of  democracy  has  never  dimmed 
his  faith  in  its  holiness.  Remediable  disor 
ders,  however  grievous  and  deep-seated, 
afford  us  the  comfort  of  hope,  and  the 
privilege  of  unending  exertion. 

To  no  one  ignorant  of  history  can  the 
right  of  citizenship  assume  any  real  sig 
nificance.  In  our  country  the  ballot  is  so 
carelessly  guarded,  so  shamefully  mis 
used,  that  it  has  become  to  some  men  a 
subject  of  derision  ;  to  many,  an  uncon- 
sidered  trifle  ;  to  all,  or  almost  all,  an  ex 
pression  of  personal  opinion,  which,  at 
its  best,  reflects  a  popular  newspaper, 
and,  at  its  worst,  stands  for  nothing  less 
hurtful  than  stupidity.  A  recent  contribu 
tor  to  the/' Unpopular  Review"  reminds 
us  soberly  that,  as  the  democratic  state 
cannot  rise  above  the  level  of  its  voters, 
and  as  nationality  means  for  us  merely 
the  will  of  the  people,  it  might  not  be 
amiss  to  guard  the  franchise  with  reason 
able  solicitude,  and  to  ask  something 
more  than  unlimited  ignorance,  and  the 
289 


Counter-Currents 

absence  of  a  criminal  record,  as  its  price. 
If  every  man  —  alien  or  native-born  — 
who  casts  his  ballot  could  be  made  to 
know  and  to  feel  that  "all  the  political 
forces  of  his  country  were  mainly  occu 
pied  for  a  hundred  years  in  making 
/that  act  possible,"  and  that  the  United 
States  is,  and  has  always  been,  the  nation 
of  those  "  who  willed  to  be  Americans," 
citizenship  might  become  for  us  what  it 
was  to  Rome,  what  it  is  to  France,  — -  the 
exponent  of  honour,  the  symbol  of  self- 
sacrifice. 

A  knowledge  of  history  might  also 
prove  serviceable  in  enabling  us  to  rec 
ognize  our  place  and  our  responsibility 
among  the  nations  of  the  world.  No 
remoteness  (geographical  remoteness 
counts  for  little  in  the  twentieth  century) 
can  sever  our  interests  from  the  interests 
of  Europe,  or  lift  from  our  shoulders  the 
burden  of  helping  to  sustain  the  collec 
tive  rights  of  mankind.  We  know  now 
that  the  menace  of  frightfulness  has 
290 


Americanism 

overshadowed  us.  We  know  that,  how 
ever  cautiously  we  picked  our  steps,  we 
could  not,  and  did  not,  escape  molesta 
tion.  But  even  if  we  had  saved  our  own 
skin,  if  we  had  suffered  no  destruction 
of  property,  and  if  none  of  our  dead  lay 
under  the  water,  the  freedom  of  Europe, 
the  future  of  democracy,  and  the  rights 
of  man  would  be  to  us  matters  of  con 
cern. 

It  is  true,  moreover,  that  friendship 
and  alliance  with  those  European  states 
whose  aspirations  and  ideals  respond  to 
our  own  aspirations  and  ideals,  are  as 
consistent  with  Americanism  as  are 
friendship  and  alliance  with  the  states  of 
South  America,  which  we  are  now  en 
gaged  in  loving.  It  is  not  from  Bolivia, 
or  Chile,  or  Venezuela,  or  the  Argen 
tine  that  we  have  drawn  our  best  tradi 
tions,  our  law,  language,  literature,  and 
art.  We  extend  to  these  "  sister  Repub 
lics"  the  arms  of  commercial  affection  ; 
but  they  have  no  magic  words  like  Magna 
291 


Counter-Currents 

Charta  and  le  Tiers  Etat  to  stir  our  souls 
an  inch  beyond  self-profit.  When  we 
count  up  our  assets,  we  must  reckon 
heavily  on  the  respect  of  those  nations 
which  we  most  respect,  and  whose  good 
will  in  the  past  is  a  guarantee  of  good 
will  in  the  future.  It  is  worth  our  while, 
even  from  the  standpoint  of  American 
ism,  to  prove  our  fellowship  with  hu 
manity,  our  care  for  other  interests  than 
our  own.  The  civilization  of  the  world  is 
the  business  of  all  who  live  in  the  world. 
We  cannot  see  it  crashing  down,  as  it 
crashed  in  the  sinking  of  the  Lusitania 
and  the  Ancona,  and  content  ourselves 
with  asking  how  many  Americans  were 
drowned.  Noble  standards,  and  noble 
sympathies,  and  noble  sorrows  have 
their  driving  power,  their  practical  util 
ity.  They  have  counted  heavily  in  the 
destinies  of  nations.  Carthage  had  com 
merce.  Rome  had  ideals. 

THE  END 


fttoctfibe 

CAMBRIDGE  .  MASSACHUSETTS 
U    .    S    .   A 


1 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


i  194; 

MAY   13  1948 

9Oct'55WS 

MR  3  4  re56{g| 

REC'D  LD 

AU6  2  2'64-lG  AM 

,- 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


